Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

In a first of its kind study, researchers found women who received two mRNA COVID vaccine doses during pregnancy were 61% less likely to have a baby hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of life.

In addition, two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID vaccine later in a pregnancy were linked to an even higher level of protection, 80%, compared with 32% when given before 20 weeks’ gestation.

This finding suggests a greater transfer of maternal antibodies closer to birth, but more research is needed, cautioned senior study author Manish Patel, MD, during a Tuesday media telebriefing held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Unanswered questions include how the babies got infected or if there is any protection afforded to babies for women vaccinated before pregnancy.

“We cannot be sure about the source of the infection,” said Dr. Patel, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response Team.

Dana Meaney-Delman, MD, MPH, agreed, but added that “perinatal transmission of the virus is very rare” with SARS-CoV-2. She is a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist and chief of the CDC Infant Outcomes Monitoring Research and Prevention Branch.

The study numbers were too small to show if a booster shot during pregnancy or breastfeeding could provide even greater protection for babies, Dr. Patel said.

The early release study was published online Feb. 15 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

Many previous studies looking at COVID-19 immunization during pregnancy focused on maternal health and “have clearly shown that receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy reduces the risk for severe illness,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.
 

Some dual protection suggested

Now there is evidence for a potential benefit to babies as well when a pregnant woman gets vaccinated. The study “provides real-world evidence that getting COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy might help protect infants less than 6 months [of age],” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.

“These findings continue to emphasize the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy to protect people who are pregnant and also to protect their babies,” she said.

Dr. Patel and colleagues studied 379 infants younger than 6 months hospitalized between July 1, 2021 and Jan. 17 of this year. Delta and then the Omicron variant predominated during this time.

The infants were admitted to one of 20 children’s hospitals in 17 states. The researchers compared 176 infants admitted with a positive COVID-19 PCR test to another 203 infants with a negative PCR test who served as controls. 

Half as many mothers of infants admitted with COVID-19 were vaccinated during pregnancy, 16%, versus 32% of mothers of the control infants.

Vaccination with two doses of mRNA vaccine during pregnancy was 61% effective (95% confidence interval, 31%-78%) at preventing hospitalization among these infants. Because the study was epidemiological, the lower risk was an association, not a cause-and-effect finding, Dr. Patel said.

Babies admitted to the hospital positive for COVID-19 were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, 18%, versus 9% of control group babies; and more likely to be Hispanic, 34% versus 28%, respectively.

A total 24% of infants with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU, including the baby of an unvaccinated mother who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Another baby of an unvaccinated mother was the only infant death during the study.
 

Maternal vaccination trends

A reporter pointed out that COVID-19 vaccination rates tend to be low among pregnant women. “So there is some exciting news,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said, referring to a steady increase in the percentages of pregnant women in the U.S. choosing to get vaccinated, according to the CDC Data Tracker website.

“The numbers are encouraging, [but] they’re not quite where we need them to be, and they do differ by race and ethnicity,” she added.

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

In a first of its kind study, researchers found women who received two mRNA COVID vaccine doses during pregnancy were 61% less likely to have a baby hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of life.

In addition, two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID vaccine later in a pregnancy were linked to an even higher level of protection, 80%, compared with 32% when given before 20 weeks’ gestation.

This finding suggests a greater transfer of maternal antibodies closer to birth, but more research is needed, cautioned senior study author Manish Patel, MD, during a Tuesday media telebriefing held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Unanswered questions include how the babies got infected or if there is any protection afforded to babies for women vaccinated before pregnancy.

“We cannot be sure about the source of the infection,” said Dr. Patel, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response Team.

Dana Meaney-Delman, MD, MPH, agreed, but added that “perinatal transmission of the virus is very rare” with SARS-CoV-2. She is a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist and chief of the CDC Infant Outcomes Monitoring Research and Prevention Branch.

The study numbers were too small to show if a booster shot during pregnancy or breastfeeding could provide even greater protection for babies, Dr. Patel said.

The early release study was published online Feb. 15 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

Many previous studies looking at COVID-19 immunization during pregnancy focused on maternal health and “have clearly shown that receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy reduces the risk for severe illness,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.
 

Some dual protection suggested

Now there is evidence for a potential benefit to babies as well when a pregnant woman gets vaccinated. The study “provides real-world evidence that getting COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy might help protect infants less than 6 months [of age],” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.

“These findings continue to emphasize the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy to protect people who are pregnant and also to protect their babies,” she said.

Dr. Patel and colleagues studied 379 infants younger than 6 months hospitalized between July 1, 2021 and Jan. 17 of this year. Delta and then the Omicron variant predominated during this time.

The infants were admitted to one of 20 children’s hospitals in 17 states. The researchers compared 176 infants admitted with a positive COVID-19 PCR test to another 203 infants with a negative PCR test who served as controls. 

Half as many mothers of infants admitted with COVID-19 were vaccinated during pregnancy, 16%, versus 32% of mothers of the control infants.

Vaccination with two doses of mRNA vaccine during pregnancy was 61% effective (95% confidence interval, 31%-78%) at preventing hospitalization among these infants. Because the study was epidemiological, the lower risk was an association, not a cause-and-effect finding, Dr. Patel said.

Babies admitted to the hospital positive for COVID-19 were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, 18%, versus 9% of control group babies; and more likely to be Hispanic, 34% versus 28%, respectively.

A total 24% of infants with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU, including the baby of an unvaccinated mother who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Another baby of an unvaccinated mother was the only infant death during the study.
 

Maternal vaccination trends

A reporter pointed out that COVID-19 vaccination rates tend to be low among pregnant women. “So there is some exciting news,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said, referring to a steady increase in the percentages of pregnant women in the U.S. choosing to get vaccinated, according to the CDC Data Tracker website.

“The numbers are encouraging, [but] they’re not quite where we need them to be, and they do differ by race and ethnicity,” she added.

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

In a first of its kind study, researchers found women who received two mRNA COVID vaccine doses during pregnancy were 61% less likely to have a baby hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of life.

In addition, two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID vaccine later in a pregnancy were linked to an even higher level of protection, 80%, compared with 32% when given before 20 weeks’ gestation.

This finding suggests a greater transfer of maternal antibodies closer to birth, but more research is needed, cautioned senior study author Manish Patel, MD, during a Tuesday media telebriefing held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Unanswered questions include how the babies got infected or if there is any protection afforded to babies for women vaccinated before pregnancy.

“We cannot be sure about the source of the infection,” said Dr. Patel, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response Team.

Dana Meaney-Delman, MD, MPH, agreed, but added that “perinatal transmission of the virus is very rare” with SARS-CoV-2. She is a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist and chief of the CDC Infant Outcomes Monitoring Research and Prevention Branch.

The study numbers were too small to show if a booster shot during pregnancy or breastfeeding could provide even greater protection for babies, Dr. Patel said.

The early release study was published online Feb. 15 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

Many previous studies looking at COVID-19 immunization during pregnancy focused on maternal health and “have clearly shown that receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy reduces the risk for severe illness,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.
 

Some dual protection suggested

Now there is evidence for a potential benefit to babies as well when a pregnant woman gets vaccinated. The study “provides real-world evidence that getting COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy might help protect infants less than 6 months [of age],” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.

“These findings continue to emphasize the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy to protect people who are pregnant and also to protect their babies,” she said.

Dr. Patel and colleagues studied 379 infants younger than 6 months hospitalized between July 1, 2021 and Jan. 17 of this year. Delta and then the Omicron variant predominated during this time.

The infants were admitted to one of 20 children’s hospitals in 17 states. The researchers compared 176 infants admitted with a positive COVID-19 PCR test to another 203 infants with a negative PCR test who served as controls. 

Half as many mothers of infants admitted with COVID-19 were vaccinated during pregnancy, 16%, versus 32% of mothers of the control infants.

Vaccination with two doses of mRNA vaccine during pregnancy was 61% effective (95% confidence interval, 31%-78%) at preventing hospitalization among these infants. Because the study was epidemiological, the lower risk was an association, not a cause-and-effect finding, Dr. Patel said.

Babies admitted to the hospital positive for COVID-19 were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, 18%, versus 9% of control group babies; and more likely to be Hispanic, 34% versus 28%, respectively.

A total 24% of infants with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU, including the baby of an unvaccinated mother who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Another baby of an unvaccinated mother was the only infant death during the study.
 

Maternal vaccination trends

A reporter pointed out that COVID-19 vaccination rates tend to be low among pregnant women. “So there is some exciting news,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said, referring to a steady increase in the percentages of pregnant women in the U.S. choosing to get vaccinated, according to the CDC Data Tracker website.

“The numbers are encouraging, [but] they’re not quite where we need them to be, and they do differ by race and ethnicity,” she added.

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

The vitamin D story exudes teaching points: It offers a master class in critical appraisal, connecting the concepts of biologic plausibility, flawed surrogate markers, confounded observational studies, and slews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing no benefits on health outcomes.

Yet despite the utter lack of benefit seen in trials, the hype continues. And the pandemic has only enhanced this hype as an onslaught of papers have reported the association of low vitamin D levels and COVID-19 disease.

My questions are simple: Why doesn’t the evidence persuade people? How many nonsignificant trials do we need before researchers stop studying vitamin D, doctors stop (routinely) measuring levels, and patients stop wasting money on the unhelpful supplement? What are the implications for this lack of persuasion?

Before exploring these questions, I want to set out that symptomatic vitamin deficiencies of any sort ought to be corrected. 
 

Biologic plausibility and the pull of observational studies

It has long been known that vitamin D is crucial for bone health and that it can be produced in the skin with sun exposure. In the last decade, however, experts note that nearly every tissue and cell in our body has a vitamin D receptor. It then follows that if this many cells in the body can activate vitamin D, it must be vital for cardiovascular health, immune function, cancer prevention: basically, everything health related.

Oodles of observational studies have found that low serum levels of vitamin D correlate with higher mortality from all causes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and now even COVID-19. Yet no matter the amount of statistical adjustment in these studies, we cannot know whether these associations are due to true causality.

The major issue is confounding: That is, people with low vitamin D levels have other conditions or diseases that lead to higher rates of ill health. Consider a patient with obesity, arthritis, and cognitive decline; this person is unlikely to do much exercise in the sun and may have low vitamin D levels. The low vitamin D level is simply a marker of overall poor health.
 

The randomized controlled trials tell a clear story

There are hundreds of vitamin D RCTs. The results simplify into one sentence: Vitamin D supplements do not improve health outcomes.

Here is a short summary of some recent studies.

VITAL, a massive (N > 25,000) RCT with 5 years of follow-up, compared vitamin D supplements to placebo and found no differences in the primary endpoints of cancer or cardiac events. Rates of death from any cause were nearly identical. Crucially, in subgroup analyses, the effects did not vary according to vitamin D levels at baseline.

The D-Health investigators randomly assigned more than 21,000 adults to vitamin D or placebo and after 5.7 years of follow-up reported no differences in the primary endpoint of overall mortality. There also were no differences in cardiovascular disease mortality.

Then you have the Mendelian randomized studies, which some have called nature’s RCT. These studies take advantage of the fact that some people are born with gene variations that predispose to low vitamin D levels. More than 60 Mendelian randomization studies have evaluated the consequences of lifelong genetically lowered vitamin D levels on various outcomes; most of these have found null effects.

Then there are the meta-analyses and systematic reviews. I loved the conclusion of this review of systematic reviews from the BMJ (emphasis mine):

“Despite a few hundred systematic reviews and meta-analyses, highly convincing evidence of a clear role of vitamin D does not exist for any outcome, but associations with a selection of outcomes are probable.”

 

The failure to persuade

My original plan was to emphasize the power of the RCT. Despite strong associations of low vitamin D levels with poor outcomes, the trials show no benefit to treatment. This strongly suggests (or nearly proves) that low vitamin D levels are akin to premature ventricular complexes after myocardial infarction: a marker for risk but not a target for therapy.

But I now see the more important issue as why scientists, funders, clinicians, and patients are not persuaded by clear evidence. Every day in clinic I see patients on vitamin D supplements; the journals keep publishing vitamin D studies. The proponents of vitamin D remain positive. And lately there is outsized attention and hope that vitamin D will mitigate SARS-CoV2 infection – based only on observational data.

You might argue against this point by saying vitamin D is natural and relatively innocuous, so who cares?

I offer three rebuttals to that point: Opportunity costs, distraction, and the insidious danger of poor critical appraisal skills. If you are burning money on vitamin D research, there is less available to study other important issues. If a patient is distracted by low vitamin D levels, she may pay less attention to her high body mass index or hypertension. And on the matter of critical appraisal, trust in medicine requires clinicians to be competent in critical appraisal. And these days, what could be more important than trust in medical professionals?

One major reason for the failure of persuasion of evidence is spin – or language that distracts from the primary endpoint. Here are two (of many) examples:

A meta-analysis of 50 vitamin D trials set out to study mortality. The authors found no significant difference in that primary endpoint. But the second sentence in their conclusion was that vitamin D supplements reduced the risk for cancer deaths by 15%. That’s a secondary endpoint in a study with nonsignificance in the primary endpoint. That is spin. This meta-analysis was completed before the Australian D-Health trial found that cancer deaths were 15% higher in the vitamin D arm, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

The following example is worse: The authors of the VITAL trial, which found that vitamin D supplements had no effect on the primary endpoint of invasive cancer or cardiovascular disease, published a secondary analysis of the trial looking at a different endpoint: A composite incidence of metastatic and fatal invasive total cancer. They reported a 0.4% lower rate for the vitamin D group, a difference that barely made statistical significance at a P value of .04. 

But everyone knows the dangers of reanalyzing data with a new endpoint after you have seen the data. What’s more, even if this were a reasonable post hoc analysis, the results are neither clinically meaningful nor statistically robust.  Yet the fatally flawed paper has been viewed 60,000 times and picked up by 48 news outlets.

Another way to distract from nonsignificant primary outcomes is to nitpick the trials. The vitamin D dose wasn’t high enough, for instance. This might persuade me if there were one or two vitamin D trials, but there are hundreds of trials and meta-analyses, and their results are consistently null.
 

Conclusion: No, it is not hopeless

A nihilist would argue that fighting spin is futile. They would say you can’t fight incentives and business models. The incentive structure to publish is strong, and the journals and media know vitamin D studies garner attention – which is their currency.

I am not a nihilist and believe strongly that we must continue to teach critical appraisal and numerical literacy.

In fact, I would speculate that decades of poor critical appraisal by the medical profession have fostered outsized hope and created erroneous norms.

Imagine a counter-factual world in which clinicians have taught society that the human body is unlike an engine that can be repaired by fixing one part (i.e., the vitamin D level), that magic bullets (insulin) are rare, that most treatments fail, or that you can’t rely on association studies to prove efficacy.

In this world, people would be immune from spin and hype.

The norm would be that pills, supplements, and procedures are not what delivers good health. What delivers health is an amalgam of good luck, healthy habits, and lots of time spent outside playing in the sun.
 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vitamin D story exudes teaching points: It offers a master class in critical appraisal, connecting the concepts of biologic plausibility, flawed surrogate markers, confounded observational studies, and slews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing no benefits on health outcomes.

Yet despite the utter lack of benefit seen in trials, the hype continues. And the pandemic has only enhanced this hype as an onslaught of papers have reported the association of low vitamin D levels and COVID-19 disease.

My questions are simple: Why doesn’t the evidence persuade people? How many nonsignificant trials do we need before researchers stop studying vitamin D, doctors stop (routinely) measuring levels, and patients stop wasting money on the unhelpful supplement? What are the implications for this lack of persuasion?

Before exploring these questions, I want to set out that symptomatic vitamin deficiencies of any sort ought to be corrected. 
 

Biologic plausibility and the pull of observational studies

It has long been known that vitamin D is crucial for bone health and that it can be produced in the skin with sun exposure. In the last decade, however, experts note that nearly every tissue and cell in our body has a vitamin D receptor. It then follows that if this many cells in the body can activate vitamin D, it must be vital for cardiovascular health, immune function, cancer prevention: basically, everything health related.

Oodles of observational studies have found that low serum levels of vitamin D correlate with higher mortality from all causes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and now even COVID-19. Yet no matter the amount of statistical adjustment in these studies, we cannot know whether these associations are due to true causality.

The major issue is confounding: That is, people with low vitamin D levels have other conditions or diseases that lead to higher rates of ill health. Consider a patient with obesity, arthritis, and cognitive decline; this person is unlikely to do much exercise in the sun and may have low vitamin D levels. The low vitamin D level is simply a marker of overall poor health.
 

The randomized controlled trials tell a clear story

There are hundreds of vitamin D RCTs. The results simplify into one sentence: Vitamin D supplements do not improve health outcomes.

Here is a short summary of some recent studies.

VITAL, a massive (N > 25,000) RCT with 5 years of follow-up, compared vitamin D supplements to placebo and found no differences in the primary endpoints of cancer or cardiac events. Rates of death from any cause were nearly identical. Crucially, in subgroup analyses, the effects did not vary according to vitamin D levels at baseline.

The D-Health investigators randomly assigned more than 21,000 adults to vitamin D or placebo and after 5.7 years of follow-up reported no differences in the primary endpoint of overall mortality. There also were no differences in cardiovascular disease mortality.

Then you have the Mendelian randomized studies, which some have called nature’s RCT. These studies take advantage of the fact that some people are born with gene variations that predispose to low vitamin D levels. More than 60 Mendelian randomization studies have evaluated the consequences of lifelong genetically lowered vitamin D levels on various outcomes; most of these have found null effects.

Then there are the meta-analyses and systematic reviews. I loved the conclusion of this review of systematic reviews from the BMJ (emphasis mine):

“Despite a few hundred systematic reviews and meta-analyses, highly convincing evidence of a clear role of vitamin D does not exist for any outcome, but associations with a selection of outcomes are probable.”

 

The failure to persuade

My original plan was to emphasize the power of the RCT. Despite strong associations of low vitamin D levels with poor outcomes, the trials show no benefit to treatment. This strongly suggests (or nearly proves) that low vitamin D levels are akin to premature ventricular complexes after myocardial infarction: a marker for risk but not a target for therapy.

But I now see the more important issue as why scientists, funders, clinicians, and patients are not persuaded by clear evidence. Every day in clinic I see patients on vitamin D supplements; the journals keep publishing vitamin D studies. The proponents of vitamin D remain positive. And lately there is outsized attention and hope that vitamin D will mitigate SARS-CoV2 infection – based only on observational data.

You might argue against this point by saying vitamin D is natural and relatively innocuous, so who cares?

I offer three rebuttals to that point: Opportunity costs, distraction, and the insidious danger of poor critical appraisal skills. If you are burning money on vitamin D research, there is less available to study other important issues. If a patient is distracted by low vitamin D levels, she may pay less attention to her high body mass index or hypertension. And on the matter of critical appraisal, trust in medicine requires clinicians to be competent in critical appraisal. And these days, what could be more important than trust in medical professionals?

One major reason for the failure of persuasion of evidence is spin – or language that distracts from the primary endpoint. Here are two (of many) examples:

A meta-analysis of 50 vitamin D trials set out to study mortality. The authors found no significant difference in that primary endpoint. But the second sentence in their conclusion was that vitamin D supplements reduced the risk for cancer deaths by 15%. That’s a secondary endpoint in a study with nonsignificance in the primary endpoint. That is spin. This meta-analysis was completed before the Australian D-Health trial found that cancer deaths were 15% higher in the vitamin D arm, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

The following example is worse: The authors of the VITAL trial, which found that vitamin D supplements had no effect on the primary endpoint of invasive cancer or cardiovascular disease, published a secondary analysis of the trial looking at a different endpoint: A composite incidence of metastatic and fatal invasive total cancer. They reported a 0.4% lower rate for the vitamin D group, a difference that barely made statistical significance at a P value of .04. 

But everyone knows the dangers of reanalyzing data with a new endpoint after you have seen the data. What’s more, even if this were a reasonable post hoc analysis, the results are neither clinically meaningful nor statistically robust.  Yet the fatally flawed paper has been viewed 60,000 times and picked up by 48 news outlets.

Another way to distract from nonsignificant primary outcomes is to nitpick the trials. The vitamin D dose wasn’t high enough, for instance. This might persuade me if there were one or two vitamin D trials, but there are hundreds of trials and meta-analyses, and their results are consistently null.
 

Conclusion: No, it is not hopeless

A nihilist would argue that fighting spin is futile. They would say you can’t fight incentives and business models. The incentive structure to publish is strong, and the journals and media know vitamin D studies garner attention – which is their currency.

I am not a nihilist and believe strongly that we must continue to teach critical appraisal and numerical literacy.

In fact, I would speculate that decades of poor critical appraisal by the medical profession have fostered outsized hope and created erroneous norms.

Imagine a counter-factual world in which clinicians have taught society that the human body is unlike an engine that can be repaired by fixing one part (i.e., the vitamin D level), that magic bullets (insulin) are rare, that most treatments fail, or that you can’t rely on association studies to prove efficacy.

In this world, people would be immune from spin and hype.

The norm would be that pills, supplements, and procedures are not what delivers good health. What delivers health is an amalgam of good luck, healthy habits, and lots of time spent outside playing in the sun.
 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vitamin D story exudes teaching points: It offers a master class in critical appraisal, connecting the concepts of biologic plausibility, flawed surrogate markers, confounded observational studies, and slews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing no benefits on health outcomes.

Yet despite the utter lack of benefit seen in trials, the hype continues. And the pandemic has only enhanced this hype as an onslaught of papers have reported the association of low vitamin D levels and COVID-19 disease.

My questions are simple: Why doesn’t the evidence persuade people? How many nonsignificant trials do we need before researchers stop studying vitamin D, doctors stop (routinely) measuring levels, and patients stop wasting money on the unhelpful supplement? What are the implications for this lack of persuasion?

Before exploring these questions, I want to set out that symptomatic vitamin deficiencies of any sort ought to be corrected. 
 

Biologic plausibility and the pull of observational studies

It has long been known that vitamin D is crucial for bone health and that it can be produced in the skin with sun exposure. In the last decade, however, experts note that nearly every tissue and cell in our body has a vitamin D receptor. It then follows that if this many cells in the body can activate vitamin D, it must be vital for cardiovascular health, immune function, cancer prevention: basically, everything health related.

Oodles of observational studies have found that low serum levels of vitamin D correlate with higher mortality from all causes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and now even COVID-19. Yet no matter the amount of statistical adjustment in these studies, we cannot know whether these associations are due to true causality.

The major issue is confounding: That is, people with low vitamin D levels have other conditions or diseases that lead to higher rates of ill health. Consider a patient with obesity, arthritis, and cognitive decline; this person is unlikely to do much exercise in the sun and may have low vitamin D levels. The low vitamin D level is simply a marker of overall poor health.
 

The randomized controlled trials tell a clear story

There are hundreds of vitamin D RCTs. The results simplify into one sentence: Vitamin D supplements do not improve health outcomes.

Here is a short summary of some recent studies.

VITAL, a massive (N > 25,000) RCT with 5 years of follow-up, compared vitamin D supplements to placebo and found no differences in the primary endpoints of cancer or cardiac events. Rates of death from any cause were nearly identical. Crucially, in subgroup analyses, the effects did not vary according to vitamin D levels at baseline.

The D-Health investigators randomly assigned more than 21,000 adults to vitamin D or placebo and after 5.7 years of follow-up reported no differences in the primary endpoint of overall mortality. There also were no differences in cardiovascular disease mortality.

Then you have the Mendelian randomized studies, which some have called nature’s RCT. These studies take advantage of the fact that some people are born with gene variations that predispose to low vitamin D levels. More than 60 Mendelian randomization studies have evaluated the consequences of lifelong genetically lowered vitamin D levels on various outcomes; most of these have found null effects.

Then there are the meta-analyses and systematic reviews. I loved the conclusion of this review of systematic reviews from the BMJ (emphasis mine):

“Despite a few hundred systematic reviews and meta-analyses, highly convincing evidence of a clear role of vitamin D does not exist for any outcome, but associations with a selection of outcomes are probable.”

 

The failure to persuade

My original plan was to emphasize the power of the RCT. Despite strong associations of low vitamin D levels with poor outcomes, the trials show no benefit to treatment. This strongly suggests (or nearly proves) that low vitamin D levels are akin to premature ventricular complexes after myocardial infarction: a marker for risk but not a target for therapy.

But I now see the more important issue as why scientists, funders, clinicians, and patients are not persuaded by clear evidence. Every day in clinic I see patients on vitamin D supplements; the journals keep publishing vitamin D studies. The proponents of vitamin D remain positive. And lately there is outsized attention and hope that vitamin D will mitigate SARS-CoV2 infection – based only on observational data.

You might argue against this point by saying vitamin D is natural and relatively innocuous, so who cares?

I offer three rebuttals to that point: Opportunity costs, distraction, and the insidious danger of poor critical appraisal skills. If you are burning money on vitamin D research, there is less available to study other important issues. If a patient is distracted by low vitamin D levels, she may pay less attention to her high body mass index or hypertension. And on the matter of critical appraisal, trust in medicine requires clinicians to be competent in critical appraisal. And these days, what could be more important than trust in medical professionals?

One major reason for the failure of persuasion of evidence is spin – or language that distracts from the primary endpoint. Here are two (of many) examples:

A meta-analysis of 50 vitamin D trials set out to study mortality. The authors found no significant difference in that primary endpoint. But the second sentence in their conclusion was that vitamin D supplements reduced the risk for cancer deaths by 15%. That’s a secondary endpoint in a study with nonsignificance in the primary endpoint. That is spin. This meta-analysis was completed before the Australian D-Health trial found that cancer deaths were 15% higher in the vitamin D arm, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

The following example is worse: The authors of the VITAL trial, which found that vitamin D supplements had no effect on the primary endpoint of invasive cancer or cardiovascular disease, published a secondary analysis of the trial looking at a different endpoint: A composite incidence of metastatic and fatal invasive total cancer. They reported a 0.4% lower rate for the vitamin D group, a difference that barely made statistical significance at a P value of .04. 

But everyone knows the dangers of reanalyzing data with a new endpoint after you have seen the data. What’s more, even if this were a reasonable post hoc analysis, the results are neither clinically meaningful nor statistically robust.  Yet the fatally flawed paper has been viewed 60,000 times and picked up by 48 news outlets.

Another way to distract from nonsignificant primary outcomes is to nitpick the trials. The vitamin D dose wasn’t high enough, for instance. This might persuade me if there were one or two vitamin D trials, but there are hundreds of trials and meta-analyses, and their results are consistently null.
 

Conclusion: No, it is not hopeless

A nihilist would argue that fighting spin is futile. They would say you can’t fight incentives and business models. The incentive structure to publish is strong, and the journals and media know vitamin D studies garner attention – which is their currency.

I am not a nihilist and believe strongly that we must continue to teach critical appraisal and numerical literacy.

In fact, I would speculate that decades of poor critical appraisal by the medical profession have fostered outsized hope and created erroneous norms.

Imagine a counter-factual world in which clinicians have taught society that the human body is unlike an engine that can be repaired by fixing one part (i.e., the vitamin D level), that magic bullets (insulin) are rare, that most treatments fail, or that you can’t rely on association studies to prove efficacy.

In this world, people would be immune from spin and hype.

The norm would be that pills, supplements, and procedures are not what delivers good health. What delivers health is an amalgam of good luck, healthy habits, and lots of time spent outside playing in the sun.
 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The CDC will soon update its COVID-19 guidance – including masking recommendations – as cases continue to drop, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said on Feb. 16.

“As we consider future metrics, which will be updated soon, we recognize the importance of not just cases … but critically, medically severe disease that leads to hospitalizations,” Dr. Walensky said at a White House news briefing. “We must consider hospital capacity as an additional important barometer.”

She later added, “We are looking at an overview of much of our guidance, and masking in all settings will be a part of that.”

Coronavirus cases continue to drop nationwide. This week’s 7-day daily average of cases is 147,000, a decrease of 40%. Hospitalizations have dropped 28% to 9,500, and daily deaths are 2,200, a decrease of 9%.

“Omicron cases are declining, and we are all cautiously optimistic about the trajectory we’re on,” Dr. Walensky said. “Things are moving in the right direction, but we want to remain vigilant to do all we can so this trajectory continues.”

Dr. Walensky said public masking remains especially important if someone is symptomatic or not feeling well, or if there has been a COVID-19 exposure. Those who are within 10 days of being diagnosed with the virus should also remain masked in public.

“We all share the same goal: to get to a point where COVID-19 is no longer disrupting our daily lives. A time when it won’t be a constant crisis,” Dr. Walensky said. “Moving from this pandemic will be a process led by science and epidemiological trends, and one that relies on the powerful tools we already have.”
 

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

The CDC will soon update its COVID-19 guidance – including masking recommendations – as cases continue to drop, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said on Feb. 16.

“As we consider future metrics, which will be updated soon, we recognize the importance of not just cases … but critically, medically severe disease that leads to hospitalizations,” Dr. Walensky said at a White House news briefing. “We must consider hospital capacity as an additional important barometer.”

She later added, “We are looking at an overview of much of our guidance, and masking in all settings will be a part of that.”

Coronavirus cases continue to drop nationwide. This week’s 7-day daily average of cases is 147,000, a decrease of 40%. Hospitalizations have dropped 28% to 9,500, and daily deaths are 2,200, a decrease of 9%.

“Omicron cases are declining, and we are all cautiously optimistic about the trajectory we’re on,” Dr. Walensky said. “Things are moving in the right direction, but we want to remain vigilant to do all we can so this trajectory continues.”

Dr. Walensky said public masking remains especially important if someone is symptomatic or not feeling well, or if there has been a COVID-19 exposure. Those who are within 10 days of being diagnosed with the virus should also remain masked in public.

“We all share the same goal: to get to a point where COVID-19 is no longer disrupting our daily lives. A time when it won’t be a constant crisis,” Dr. Walensky said. “Moving from this pandemic will be a process led by science and epidemiological trends, and one that relies on the powerful tools we already have.”
 

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

The CDC will soon update its COVID-19 guidance – including masking recommendations – as cases continue to drop, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said on Feb. 16.

“As we consider future metrics, which will be updated soon, we recognize the importance of not just cases … but critically, medically severe disease that leads to hospitalizations,” Dr. Walensky said at a White House news briefing. “We must consider hospital capacity as an additional important barometer.”

She later added, “We are looking at an overview of much of our guidance, and masking in all settings will be a part of that.”

Coronavirus cases continue to drop nationwide. This week’s 7-day daily average of cases is 147,000, a decrease of 40%. Hospitalizations have dropped 28% to 9,500, and daily deaths are 2,200, a decrease of 9%.

“Omicron cases are declining, and we are all cautiously optimistic about the trajectory we’re on,” Dr. Walensky said. “Things are moving in the right direction, but we want to remain vigilant to do all we can so this trajectory continues.”

Dr. Walensky said public masking remains especially important if someone is symptomatic or not feeling well, or if there has been a COVID-19 exposure. Those who are within 10 days of being diagnosed with the virus should also remain masked in public.

“We all share the same goal: to get to a point where COVID-19 is no longer disrupting our daily lives. A time when it won’t be a constant crisis,” Dr. Walensky said. “Moving from this pandemic will be a process led by science and epidemiological trends, and one that relies on the powerful tools we already have.”
 

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

Women are at higher risk of severe adverse events (AEs) from cancer therapy than men, and this is seen with chemotherapy, targeted agents, and especially with immunotherapy.

The finding comes from a review of more than 23,000 participants across 202 trials of various cancers (excluding sex-related cancers) that has been conducted over the past 40 years.

The investigators found a 34% increased risk of severe AEs among women, compared with men, climbing to a 49% higher risk with immunotherapy.

Women had a substantially greater risk of severe symptomatic AEs, including with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and were more likely to experience severe hematologic AEs with chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

The particularly large sex differences with immunotherapy suggest “that studying AEs from these agents is a priority,” the investigators comment.

The article was published online on Feb. 4 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“It has been understood that women have more toxicity from chemotherapy than men, but almost no research has aimed to understand whether that pattern held for novel treatments like immunotherapy or targeted therapies. We found similar large differences, especially for immune treatments,” said lead investigator Joseph Unger, PhD, a biostatistician and health services researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in an institutional press release.

A “better understanding of the nature of the underlying mechanisms could potentially lead to interventions or delivery modifications to reduce toxicity in women,” the investigators comment in their article.

Among a sea of possible explanations for the finding, there could be differences in how men and women metabolize cancer therapies or differences in how they perceive symptoms. Women may also receive relatively higher doses because of their body size or have higher adherence to treatment.

Whatever the case, as cancer treatment becomes increasingly individualized, “sex may be an important consideration,” Dr. Unger said.
 

Study details

The study involved 8,838 women and 14,458 men across the trials, which were phase 2 or 3 investigations conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network from 1980 to 2019. Trials including sex-related cancers were excluded. In the trials included in the review, the most common cancers were gastrointestinal and lung, followed by leukemia.

Seventy-five percent of the subjects received chemotherapy, and the rest received either targeted therapy or immunotherapy.

Two-thirds of the subjects had at least one grade 3 or higher AE; women had a 25% higher risk than men of having AEs of grade 5 or higher.

After adjusting for age, race, disease prognosis, and other factors, women were at increased risk of severe symptomatic AEs, such as nausea and pain, across all treatment lines and especially with immunotherapy, for which reports of symptomatic AEs were 66% higher.

Women also had a higher risk of symptomatic gastrointestinal AEs with all three treatments and a higher risk of sleep-related AEs with chemotherapy and immunotherapy, which “could be a function of hormonal effects interacting with cancer treatment,” the investigators said.

As for readily measurable AEs, women were at higher risk than men for objective hematologic AEs with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. There were no statistically significant sex differences in the risk of nonhematologic objective AEs.

The team notes that increased toxicity among women has been associated with improved survival, which may give AEs more time to develop. Higher rates of AEs might also signal increased delivery or efficacy of cancer treatments.

However, a previous study found that men may have a better response to immunotherapy than women. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were twice as effective as standard cancer therapies in the treatment of men with advanced solid tumors compared to their female counterparts, concluded a team that carried out a meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials involving more than 11,351 patients.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Unger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have reported ties to a handful of companies, including Johnson & Johnson and Seattle Genetics. One is an employee of AIM Specialty Health.

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

Women are at higher risk of severe adverse events (AEs) from cancer therapy than men, and this is seen with chemotherapy, targeted agents, and especially with immunotherapy.

The finding comes from a review of more than 23,000 participants across 202 trials of various cancers (excluding sex-related cancers) that has been conducted over the past 40 years.

The investigators found a 34% increased risk of severe AEs among women, compared with men, climbing to a 49% higher risk with immunotherapy.

Women had a substantially greater risk of severe symptomatic AEs, including with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and were more likely to experience severe hematologic AEs with chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

The particularly large sex differences with immunotherapy suggest “that studying AEs from these agents is a priority,” the investigators comment.

The article was published online on Feb. 4 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“It has been understood that women have more toxicity from chemotherapy than men, but almost no research has aimed to understand whether that pattern held for novel treatments like immunotherapy or targeted therapies. We found similar large differences, especially for immune treatments,” said lead investigator Joseph Unger, PhD, a biostatistician and health services researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in an institutional press release.

A “better understanding of the nature of the underlying mechanisms could potentially lead to interventions or delivery modifications to reduce toxicity in women,” the investigators comment in their article.

Among a sea of possible explanations for the finding, there could be differences in how men and women metabolize cancer therapies or differences in how they perceive symptoms. Women may also receive relatively higher doses because of their body size or have higher adherence to treatment.

Whatever the case, as cancer treatment becomes increasingly individualized, “sex may be an important consideration,” Dr. Unger said.
 

Study details

The study involved 8,838 women and 14,458 men across the trials, which were phase 2 or 3 investigations conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network from 1980 to 2019. Trials including sex-related cancers were excluded. In the trials included in the review, the most common cancers were gastrointestinal and lung, followed by leukemia.

Seventy-five percent of the subjects received chemotherapy, and the rest received either targeted therapy or immunotherapy.

Two-thirds of the subjects had at least one grade 3 or higher AE; women had a 25% higher risk than men of having AEs of grade 5 or higher.

After adjusting for age, race, disease prognosis, and other factors, women were at increased risk of severe symptomatic AEs, such as nausea and pain, across all treatment lines and especially with immunotherapy, for which reports of symptomatic AEs were 66% higher.

Women also had a higher risk of symptomatic gastrointestinal AEs with all three treatments and a higher risk of sleep-related AEs with chemotherapy and immunotherapy, which “could be a function of hormonal effects interacting with cancer treatment,” the investigators said.

As for readily measurable AEs, women were at higher risk than men for objective hematologic AEs with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. There were no statistically significant sex differences in the risk of nonhematologic objective AEs.

The team notes that increased toxicity among women has been associated with improved survival, which may give AEs more time to develop. Higher rates of AEs might also signal increased delivery or efficacy of cancer treatments.

However, a previous study found that men may have a better response to immunotherapy than women. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were twice as effective as standard cancer therapies in the treatment of men with advanced solid tumors compared to their female counterparts, concluded a team that carried out a meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials involving more than 11,351 patients.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Unger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have reported ties to a handful of companies, including Johnson & Johnson and Seattle Genetics. One is an employee of AIM Specialty Health.

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

Women are at higher risk of severe adverse events (AEs) from cancer therapy than men, and this is seen with chemotherapy, targeted agents, and especially with immunotherapy.

The finding comes from a review of more than 23,000 participants across 202 trials of various cancers (excluding sex-related cancers) that has been conducted over the past 40 years.

The investigators found a 34% increased risk of severe AEs among women, compared with men, climbing to a 49% higher risk with immunotherapy.

Women had a substantially greater risk of severe symptomatic AEs, including with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and were more likely to experience severe hematologic AEs with chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

The particularly large sex differences with immunotherapy suggest “that studying AEs from these agents is a priority,” the investigators comment.

The article was published online on Feb. 4 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“It has been understood that women have more toxicity from chemotherapy than men, but almost no research has aimed to understand whether that pattern held for novel treatments like immunotherapy or targeted therapies. We found similar large differences, especially for immune treatments,” said lead investigator Joseph Unger, PhD, a biostatistician and health services researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in an institutional press release.

A “better understanding of the nature of the underlying mechanisms could potentially lead to interventions or delivery modifications to reduce toxicity in women,” the investigators comment in their article.

Among a sea of possible explanations for the finding, there could be differences in how men and women metabolize cancer therapies or differences in how they perceive symptoms. Women may also receive relatively higher doses because of their body size or have higher adherence to treatment.

Whatever the case, as cancer treatment becomes increasingly individualized, “sex may be an important consideration,” Dr. Unger said.
 

Study details

The study involved 8,838 women and 14,458 men across the trials, which were phase 2 or 3 investigations conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network from 1980 to 2019. Trials including sex-related cancers were excluded. In the trials included in the review, the most common cancers were gastrointestinal and lung, followed by leukemia.

Seventy-five percent of the subjects received chemotherapy, and the rest received either targeted therapy or immunotherapy.

Two-thirds of the subjects had at least one grade 3 or higher AE; women had a 25% higher risk than men of having AEs of grade 5 or higher.

After adjusting for age, race, disease prognosis, and other factors, women were at increased risk of severe symptomatic AEs, such as nausea and pain, across all treatment lines and especially with immunotherapy, for which reports of symptomatic AEs were 66% higher.

Women also had a higher risk of symptomatic gastrointestinal AEs with all three treatments and a higher risk of sleep-related AEs with chemotherapy and immunotherapy, which “could be a function of hormonal effects interacting with cancer treatment,” the investigators said.

As for readily measurable AEs, women were at higher risk than men for objective hematologic AEs with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. There were no statistically significant sex differences in the risk of nonhematologic objective AEs.

The team notes that increased toxicity among women has been associated with improved survival, which may give AEs more time to develop. Higher rates of AEs might also signal increased delivery or efficacy of cancer treatments.

However, a previous study found that men may have a better response to immunotherapy than women. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were twice as effective as standard cancer therapies in the treatment of men with advanced solid tumors compared to their female counterparts, concluded a team that carried out a meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials involving more than 11,351 patients.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Unger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have reported ties to a handful of companies, including Johnson & Johnson and Seattle Genetics. One is an employee of AIM Specialty Health.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand eligibility guidelines for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for Medicare recipients.

According to the final decision, announced February 10, CMS will lower the age for screening from 55 to 50 years up to 77 years and reduce criteria for tobacco smoking history from at least 30 pack-years to 20 pack-years. The expanded Medicare recommendation will address racial disparities associated with lung cancer, given evidence that one third of Black patients are diagnosed with lung cancer before age 55.

The updated CMS guidelines align closely with recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in March 2021. The USPSTF expanded its guidelines for screening to include individuals ages 50 to 80 years, as well as those who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Overall, the expanded guidelines will nearly double the number of individuals who are eligible for screening and have the potential to save significantly more lives by identifying cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage.

“Expanding coverage broadens access for lung cancer screening to at-risk populations,” said Lee Felisher, MD, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, in a statement. “Today’s decision not only expands access to quality care but is also critical to improving health outcomes for people by helping to detect lung cancer earlier.”

CMS’s decision also simplifies requirements for counseling and shared decision-making visits and removes an initial requirement for the reading radiologist to document participation in continuing medical education, which will reduce administrative burden. CMS also added a requirement back to the National Coverage Determination criteria that requires radiology imaging facilities to use a standardized lung nodule identification, classification, and reporting system.

The American Lung Association applauds the decision to update eligibility.

“[The] announcement from CMS will give more people enrolled in Medicare access to lifesaving lung cancer screening. Screening for individuals at high risk is the only tool to catch this disease early when it is more curable,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, only 5.7% of people who are eligible have been screened, so it’s important that we talk with our friends and family who are at high risk about getting screened.”

While access to screening will significantly increase, the American Lung Association recommends CMS go a step further and expand eligibility to individuals up to 80 years of age, as the USPSTF recommendations do, as well as remove the recommendation that individuals cease screening once they have stopped smoking for 15 years.

Given the new guidelines, most private insurance plans will need to update screening coverage policies to reflect the updated guidelines for plan years beginning after March 31.

To read the final decision, visit the CMS website.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand eligibility guidelines for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for Medicare recipients.

According to the final decision, announced February 10, CMS will lower the age for screening from 55 to 50 years up to 77 years and reduce criteria for tobacco smoking history from at least 30 pack-years to 20 pack-years. The expanded Medicare recommendation will address racial disparities associated with lung cancer, given evidence that one third of Black patients are diagnosed with lung cancer before age 55.

The updated CMS guidelines align closely with recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in March 2021. The USPSTF expanded its guidelines for screening to include individuals ages 50 to 80 years, as well as those who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Overall, the expanded guidelines will nearly double the number of individuals who are eligible for screening and have the potential to save significantly more lives by identifying cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage.

“Expanding coverage broadens access for lung cancer screening to at-risk populations,” said Lee Felisher, MD, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, in a statement. “Today’s decision not only expands access to quality care but is also critical to improving health outcomes for people by helping to detect lung cancer earlier.”

CMS’s decision also simplifies requirements for counseling and shared decision-making visits and removes an initial requirement for the reading radiologist to document participation in continuing medical education, which will reduce administrative burden. CMS also added a requirement back to the National Coverage Determination criteria that requires radiology imaging facilities to use a standardized lung nodule identification, classification, and reporting system.

The American Lung Association applauds the decision to update eligibility.

“[The] announcement from CMS will give more people enrolled in Medicare access to lifesaving lung cancer screening. Screening for individuals at high risk is the only tool to catch this disease early when it is more curable,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, only 5.7% of people who are eligible have been screened, so it’s important that we talk with our friends and family who are at high risk about getting screened.”

While access to screening will significantly increase, the American Lung Association recommends CMS go a step further and expand eligibility to individuals up to 80 years of age, as the USPSTF recommendations do, as well as remove the recommendation that individuals cease screening once they have stopped smoking for 15 years.

Given the new guidelines, most private insurance plans will need to update screening coverage policies to reflect the updated guidelines for plan years beginning after March 31.

To read the final decision, visit the CMS website.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand eligibility guidelines for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for Medicare recipients.

According to the final decision, announced February 10, CMS will lower the age for screening from 55 to 50 years up to 77 years and reduce criteria for tobacco smoking history from at least 30 pack-years to 20 pack-years. The expanded Medicare recommendation will address racial disparities associated with lung cancer, given evidence that one third of Black patients are diagnosed with lung cancer before age 55.

The updated CMS guidelines align closely with recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in March 2021. The USPSTF expanded its guidelines for screening to include individuals ages 50 to 80 years, as well as those who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Overall, the expanded guidelines will nearly double the number of individuals who are eligible for screening and have the potential to save significantly more lives by identifying cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage.

“Expanding coverage broadens access for lung cancer screening to at-risk populations,” said Lee Felisher, MD, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, in a statement. “Today’s decision not only expands access to quality care but is also critical to improving health outcomes for people by helping to detect lung cancer earlier.”

CMS’s decision also simplifies requirements for counseling and shared decision-making visits and removes an initial requirement for the reading radiologist to document participation in continuing medical education, which will reduce administrative burden. CMS also added a requirement back to the National Coverage Determination criteria that requires radiology imaging facilities to use a standardized lung nodule identification, classification, and reporting system.

The American Lung Association applauds the decision to update eligibility.

“[The] announcement from CMS will give more people enrolled in Medicare access to lifesaving lung cancer screening. Screening for individuals at high risk is the only tool to catch this disease early when it is more curable,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, only 5.7% of people who are eligible have been screened, so it’s important that we talk with our friends and family who are at high risk about getting screened.”

While access to screening will significantly increase, the American Lung Association recommends CMS go a step further and expand eligibility to individuals up to 80 years of age, as the USPSTF recommendations do, as well as remove the recommendation that individuals cease screening once they have stopped smoking for 15 years.

Given the new guidelines, most private insurance plans will need to update screening coverage policies to reflect the updated guidelines for plan years beginning after March 31.

To read the final decision, visit the CMS website.

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

Junk (germs) in the trunk

It’s been a long drive, and you’ve got a long way to go. You pull into a rest stop to use the bathroom and get some food. Quick, which order do you do those things in?

If you’re not a crazy person, you’d use the bathroom and then get your food. Who would bring food into a dirty bathroom? That’s kind of gross. Most people would take care of business, grab food, then get back in the car, eating along the way. Unfortunately, if you’re searching for a sanitary eating environment, your car may not actually be much better than that bathroom, according to new research from Aston University in Birmingham, England.

Robert Couse-Baker/PxHere

Let’s start off with the good news. The steering wheels of the five used cars that were swabbed for bacteria were pretty clean. Definitely cleaner than either of the toilet seats analyzed, likely thanks to increased usage of sanitizer, courtesy of the current pandemic. It’s easy to wipe down the steering wheel. Things break down, though, once we look elsewhere. The interiors of the five cars all contained just as much, if not more, bacteria than the toilet seats, with fecal matter commonly appearing on the driver’s seat.

The car interiors were less than sanitary, but they paled in comparison with the real winner here: the trunk. In each of the five cars, bacteria levels there far exceeded those in the toilets, and included everyone’s favorites – Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

So, snacking on a bag of chips as you drive along is probably okay, but the food that popped out of its bag and spent the last 5 minutes rolling around the back? Perhaps less okay. You may want to wash it. Or burn it. Or torch the entire car for good measure like we’re about to do. Next time we’ll buy a car without poop in it.
 

Shut the lid when you flush

Maybe you’ve never thought about this, but it’s actually extremely important to shut the toilet lid when you flush. Just think of all those germs flying around from the force of the flush. Is your toothbrush anywhere near the toilet? Ew. Those pesky little bacteria and viruses are everywhere, and we know we can’t really escape them, but we should really do our best once we’re made aware of where to find them.

Marco Verch/ccnull.de/CC by 2.0

It seems like a no-brainer these days since we’ve all been really focused on cleanliness during the pandemic, but according to a poll in the United Kingdom, 55% of the 2,000 participants said they don’t put the lid down while flushing.

The OnePoll survey commissioned by Harpic, a company that makes toilet-cleaning products, also advised that toilet water isn’t even completely clean after flushed several times and can still be contaminated with many germs. Company researchers took specialized pictures of flushing toilets and they looked like tiny little Fourth of July fireworks shows, minus the sparklers. The pictures proved that droplets can go all over the place, including on bathroom users.

“There has never been a more important time to take extra care around our homes, although the risks associated with germ spread in unhygienic bathrooms are high, the solution to keeping them clean is simple,” a Harpic researcher said. Since other studies have shown that coronavirus can be found in feces, it’s become increasingly important to keep ourselves and others safe. Fireworks are pretty, but not when they come out of your toilet.
 

The latest in MRI fashion

Do you see that photo just below? Looks like something you could buy at the Lego store, right? Well, it’s not. Nor is it the proverbial thinking cap come to life.

(Did someone just say “come to life”? That reminds us of our favorite scene from Frosty the Snowman.)

Cydney Scott/Boston University

Anywaaay, about the photo. That funny-looking chapeau is what we in the science business call a metamaterial.

Nope, metamaterials have nothing to do with Facebook parent company Meta. We checked. According to a statement from Boston University, they are engineered structures “created from small unit cells that might be unspectacular alone, but when grouped together in a precise way, get new superpowers not found in nature.”

Superpowers, eh? Who doesn’t want superpowers? Even if they come with a funny hat.

The unit cells, known as resonators, are just plastic tubes wrapped in copper wiring, but when they are grouped in an array and precisely arranged into a helmet, they can channel the magnetic field of the MRI machine during a scan. In theory, that would create “crisper images that can be captured at twice the normal speed,” Xin Zhang, PhD, and her team at BU’s Photonics Center explained in the university statement.

In the future, the metamaterial device could “be used in conjunction with cheaper low-field MRI machines to make the technology more widely available, particularly in the developing world,” they suggested. Or, like so many other superpowers, it could fall into the wrong hands. Like those of Lex Luthor. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Frosty the Snowman.
 

The highway of the mind

How fast can you think on your feet? Well, according to a recently published study, it could be a legitimate measure of intelligence. Here’s the science.

Epifantsev/Thinkstock

Researchers from the University of Würzburg in Germany and Indiana University have suggested that a person’s intelligence score measures the ability, based on certain neuronal networks and their communication structures, to switch between resting state and different task states.

The investigators set up a study to observe almost 800 people while they completed seven tasks. By monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, the teams found that subjects who had higher intelligence scores required “less adjustment when switching between different cognitive states,” they said in a separate statement.

It comes down to the network architecture of their brains.

Kirsten Hilger, PhD, head of the German group, described it in terms of highways. The resting state of the brain is normal traffic. It’s always moving. Holiday traffic is the task. The ability to handle the increased flow of commuters is a function of the highway infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the higher the intelligence.

So the next time you’re stuck in traffic, think how efficient your brain would be with such a task. The quicker, the better.

Junk (germs) in the trunk

It’s been a long drive, and you’ve got a long way to go. You pull into a rest stop to use the bathroom and get some food. Quick, which order do you do those things in?

If you’re not a crazy person, you’d use the bathroom and then get your food. Who would bring food into a dirty bathroom? That’s kind of gross. Most people would take care of business, grab food, then get back in the car, eating along the way. Unfortunately, if you’re searching for a sanitary eating environment, your car may not actually be much better than that bathroom, according to new research from Aston University in Birmingham, England.

Robert Couse-Baker/PxHere

Let’s start off with the good news. The steering wheels of the five used cars that were swabbed for bacteria were pretty clean. Definitely cleaner than either of the toilet seats analyzed, likely thanks to increased usage of sanitizer, courtesy of the current pandemic. It’s easy to wipe down the steering wheel. Things break down, though, once we look elsewhere. The interiors of the five cars all contained just as much, if not more, bacteria than the toilet seats, with fecal matter commonly appearing on the driver’s seat.

The car interiors were less than sanitary, but they paled in comparison with the real winner here: the trunk. In each of the five cars, bacteria levels there far exceeded those in the toilets, and included everyone’s favorites – Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

So, snacking on a bag of chips as you drive along is probably okay, but the food that popped out of its bag and spent the last 5 minutes rolling around the back? Perhaps less okay. You may want to wash it. Or burn it. Or torch the entire car for good measure like we’re about to do. Next time we’ll buy a car without poop in it.
 

Shut the lid when you flush

Maybe you’ve never thought about this, but it’s actually extremely important to shut the toilet lid when you flush. Just think of all those germs flying around from the force of the flush. Is your toothbrush anywhere near the toilet? Ew. Those pesky little bacteria and viruses are everywhere, and we know we can’t really escape them, but we should really do our best once we’re made aware of where to find them.

Marco Verch/ccnull.de/CC by 2.0

It seems like a no-brainer these days since we’ve all been really focused on cleanliness during the pandemic, but according to a poll in the United Kingdom, 55% of the 2,000 participants said they don’t put the lid down while flushing.

The OnePoll survey commissioned by Harpic, a company that makes toilet-cleaning products, also advised that toilet water isn’t even completely clean after flushed several times and can still be contaminated with many germs. Company researchers took specialized pictures of flushing toilets and they looked like tiny little Fourth of July fireworks shows, minus the sparklers. The pictures proved that droplets can go all over the place, including on bathroom users.

“There has never been a more important time to take extra care around our homes, although the risks associated with germ spread in unhygienic bathrooms are high, the solution to keeping them clean is simple,” a Harpic researcher said. Since other studies have shown that coronavirus can be found in feces, it’s become increasingly important to keep ourselves and others safe. Fireworks are pretty, but not when they come out of your toilet.
 

The latest in MRI fashion

Do you see that photo just below? Looks like something you could buy at the Lego store, right? Well, it’s not. Nor is it the proverbial thinking cap come to life.

(Did someone just say “come to life”? That reminds us of our favorite scene from Frosty the Snowman.)

Cydney Scott/Boston University

Anywaaay, about the photo. That funny-looking chapeau is what we in the science business call a metamaterial.

Nope, metamaterials have nothing to do with Facebook parent company Meta. We checked. According to a statement from Boston University, they are engineered structures “created from small unit cells that might be unspectacular alone, but when grouped together in a precise way, get new superpowers not found in nature.”

Superpowers, eh? Who doesn’t want superpowers? Even if they come with a funny hat.

The unit cells, known as resonators, are just plastic tubes wrapped in copper wiring, but when they are grouped in an array and precisely arranged into a helmet, they can channel the magnetic field of the MRI machine during a scan. In theory, that would create “crisper images that can be captured at twice the normal speed,” Xin Zhang, PhD, and her team at BU’s Photonics Center explained in the university statement.

In the future, the metamaterial device could “be used in conjunction with cheaper low-field MRI machines to make the technology more widely available, particularly in the developing world,” they suggested. Or, like so many other superpowers, it could fall into the wrong hands. Like those of Lex Luthor. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Frosty the Snowman.
 

The highway of the mind

How fast can you think on your feet? Well, according to a recently published study, it could be a legitimate measure of intelligence. Here’s the science.

Epifantsev/Thinkstock

Researchers from the University of Würzburg in Germany and Indiana University have suggested that a person’s intelligence score measures the ability, based on certain neuronal networks and their communication structures, to switch between resting state and different task states.

The investigators set up a study to observe almost 800 people while they completed seven tasks. By monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, the teams found that subjects who had higher intelligence scores required “less adjustment when switching between different cognitive states,” they said in a separate statement.

It comes down to the network architecture of their brains.

Kirsten Hilger, PhD, head of the German group, described it in terms of highways. The resting state of the brain is normal traffic. It’s always moving. Holiday traffic is the task. The ability to handle the increased flow of commuters is a function of the highway infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the higher the intelligence.

So the next time you’re stuck in traffic, think how efficient your brain would be with such a task. The quicker, the better.

Junk (germs) in the trunk

It’s been a long drive, and you’ve got a long way to go. You pull into a rest stop to use the bathroom and get some food. Quick, which order do you do those things in?

If you’re not a crazy person, you’d use the bathroom and then get your food. Who would bring food into a dirty bathroom? That’s kind of gross. Most people would take care of business, grab food, then get back in the car, eating along the way. Unfortunately, if you’re searching for a sanitary eating environment, your car may not actually be much better than that bathroom, according to new research from Aston University in Birmingham, England.

Robert Couse-Baker/PxHere

Let’s start off with the good news. The steering wheels of the five used cars that were swabbed for bacteria were pretty clean. Definitely cleaner than either of the toilet seats analyzed, likely thanks to increased usage of sanitizer, courtesy of the current pandemic. It’s easy to wipe down the steering wheel. Things break down, though, once we look elsewhere. The interiors of the five cars all contained just as much, if not more, bacteria than the toilet seats, with fecal matter commonly appearing on the driver’s seat.

The car interiors were less than sanitary, but they paled in comparison with the real winner here: the trunk. In each of the five cars, bacteria levels there far exceeded those in the toilets, and included everyone’s favorites – Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

So, snacking on a bag of chips as you drive along is probably okay, but the food that popped out of its bag and spent the last 5 minutes rolling around the back? Perhaps less okay. You may want to wash it. Or burn it. Or torch the entire car for good measure like we’re about to do. Next time we’ll buy a car without poop in it.
 

Shut the lid when you flush

Maybe you’ve never thought about this, but it’s actually extremely important to shut the toilet lid when you flush. Just think of all those germs flying around from the force of the flush. Is your toothbrush anywhere near the toilet? Ew. Those pesky little bacteria and viruses are everywhere, and we know we can’t really escape them, but we should really do our best once we’re made aware of where to find them.

Marco Verch/ccnull.de/CC by 2.0

It seems like a no-brainer these days since we’ve all been really focused on cleanliness during the pandemic, but according to a poll in the United Kingdom, 55% of the 2,000 participants said they don’t put the lid down while flushing.

The OnePoll survey commissioned by Harpic, a company that makes toilet-cleaning products, also advised that toilet water isn’t even completely clean after flushed several times and can still be contaminated with many germs. Company researchers took specialized pictures of flushing toilets and they looked like tiny little Fourth of July fireworks shows, minus the sparklers. The pictures proved that droplets can go all over the place, including on bathroom users.

“There has never been a more important time to take extra care around our homes, although the risks associated with germ spread in unhygienic bathrooms are high, the solution to keeping them clean is simple,” a Harpic researcher said. Since other studies have shown that coronavirus can be found in feces, it’s become increasingly important to keep ourselves and others safe. Fireworks are pretty, but not when they come out of your toilet.
 

The latest in MRI fashion

Do you see that photo just below? Looks like something you could buy at the Lego store, right? Well, it’s not. Nor is it the proverbial thinking cap come to life.

(Did someone just say “come to life”? That reminds us of our favorite scene from Frosty the Snowman.)

Cydney Scott/Boston University

Anywaaay, about the photo. That funny-looking chapeau is what we in the science business call a metamaterial.

Nope, metamaterials have nothing to do with Facebook parent company Meta. We checked. According to a statement from Boston University, they are engineered structures “created from small unit cells that might be unspectacular alone, but when grouped together in a precise way, get new superpowers not found in nature.”

Superpowers, eh? Who doesn’t want superpowers? Even if they come with a funny hat.

The unit cells, known as resonators, are just plastic tubes wrapped in copper wiring, but when they are grouped in an array and precisely arranged into a helmet, they can channel the magnetic field of the MRI machine during a scan. In theory, that would create “crisper images that can be captured at twice the normal speed,” Xin Zhang, PhD, and her team at BU’s Photonics Center explained in the university statement.

In the future, the metamaterial device could “be used in conjunction with cheaper low-field MRI machines to make the technology more widely available, particularly in the developing world,” they suggested. Or, like so many other superpowers, it could fall into the wrong hands. Like those of Lex Luthor. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Frosty the Snowman.
 

The highway of the mind

How fast can you think on your feet? Well, according to a recently published study, it could be a legitimate measure of intelligence. Here’s the science.

Epifantsev/Thinkstock

Researchers from the University of Würzburg in Germany and Indiana University have suggested that a person’s intelligence score measures the ability, based on certain neuronal networks and their communication structures, to switch between resting state and different task states.

The investigators set up a study to observe almost 800 people while they completed seven tasks. By monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, the teams found that subjects who had higher intelligence scores required “less adjustment when switching between different cognitive states,” they said in a separate statement.

It comes down to the network architecture of their brains.

Kirsten Hilger, PhD, head of the German group, described it in terms of highways. The resting state of the brain is normal traffic. It’s always moving. Holiday traffic is the task. The ability to handle the increased flow of commuters is a function of the highway infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the higher the intelligence.

So the next time you’re stuck in traffic, think how efficient your brain would be with such a task. The quicker, the better.

Common skin reactions to treatment with topical 5-FU for actinic keratosis include erythema, ulceration, and burning. In this case, however, the skin disruption opened the door to secondary impetigo.

Secondary skin infections are a known risk of treatment with topical 5-FU. The agent inhibits thymidylate synthetase, an enzyme involved in the synthesis and repair of DNA. The inhibition of this enzyme can lead to skin disruption with erosion, desquamation, and the risk of superimposed skin infections, as was seen with this patient.¹

Impetigo is a common skin infection affecting the superficial layers of the epidermis and is most commonly caused by gram-positive bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes.² Secondary impetigo, also known as impetiginization, is an infection of previously disrupted skin due to eczema, trauma, insect bites, and other conditions. This contrasts with primary impetigo, which results from a direct bacterial invasion of intact healthy skin. While impetigo predominantly affects children between the ages of 2 and 5 years, people of any age can be affected.² Impetigo characteristically manifests with painful erosions, classically covered by honey-colored crusts. Thin-walled vesicles often appear and subsequently rupture.

Treatment options for impetigo include both topical and systemic antibiotics. Topical therapy is preferred for patients with limited skin involvement, while systemic therapy is indicated for patients with numerous lesions. Mupirocin and retapamulin are first-line topical treatments. Systemic antibiotic therapy should provide coverage for both S. aureus and streptococcal infections; cephalexin and dicloxacillin are preferred. Doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or clindamycin can be used if methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is suspected.³

This patient was advised to try warm soaks (to reduce the crusting) and to follow that with the application of white petrolatum bid. The patient was also prescribed doxycycline 100 mg orally bid for 10 days. At the 1-month follow-up, there was some residual erythema, but the impetigo and crusting had resolved. The actinic keratoses had resolved, as well.

‌

Image courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD. Text courtesy of Tess Pei Lemon, BA, University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque

Common skin reactions to treatment with topical 5-FU for actinic keratosis include erythema, ulceration, and burning. In this case, however, the skin disruption opened the door to secondary impetigo.

Secondary skin infections are a known risk of treatment with topical 5-FU. The agent inhibits thymidylate synthetase, an enzyme involved in the synthesis and repair of DNA. The inhibition of this enzyme can lead to skin disruption with erosion, desquamation, and the risk of superimposed skin infections, as was seen with this patient.¹

Impetigo is a common skin infection affecting the superficial layers of the epidermis and is most commonly caused by gram-positive bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes.² Secondary impetigo, also known as impetiginization, is an infection of previously disrupted skin due to eczema, trauma, insect bites, and other conditions. This contrasts with primary impetigo, which results from a direct bacterial invasion of intact healthy skin. While impetigo predominantly affects children between the ages of 2 and 5 years, people of any age can be affected.² Impetigo characteristically manifests with painful erosions, classically covered by honey-colored crusts. Thin-walled vesicles often appear and subsequently rupture.

Treatment options for impetigo include both topical and systemic antibiotics. Topical therapy is preferred for patients with limited skin involvement, while systemic therapy is indicated for patients with numerous lesions. Mupirocin and retapamulin are first-line topical treatments. Systemic antibiotic therapy should provide coverage for both S. aureus and streptococcal infections; cephalexin and dicloxacillin are preferred. Doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or clindamycin can be used if methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is suspected.³

This patient was advised to try warm soaks (to reduce the crusting) and to follow that with the application of white petrolatum bid. The patient was also prescribed doxycycline 100 mg orally bid for 10 days. At the 1-month follow-up, there was some residual erythema, but the impetigo and crusting had resolved. The actinic keratoses had resolved, as well.

‌

Image courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD. Text courtesy of Tess Pei Lemon, BA, University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque

Common skin reactions to treatment with topical 5-FU for actinic keratosis include erythema, ulceration, and burning. In this case, however, the skin disruption opened the door to secondary impetigo.

Secondary skin infections are a known risk of treatment with topical 5-FU. The agent inhibits thymidylate synthetase, an enzyme involved in the synthesis and repair of DNA. The inhibition of this enzyme can lead to skin disruption with erosion, desquamation, and the risk of superimposed skin infections, as was seen with this patient.¹

Impetigo is a common skin infection affecting the superficial layers of the epidermis and is most commonly caused by gram-positive bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes.² Secondary impetigo, also known as impetiginization, is an infection of previously disrupted skin due to eczema, trauma, insect bites, and other conditions. This contrasts with primary impetigo, which results from a direct bacterial invasion of intact healthy skin. While impetigo predominantly affects children between the ages of 2 and 5 years, people of any age can be affected.² Impetigo characteristically manifests with painful erosions, classically covered by honey-colored crusts. Thin-walled vesicles often appear and subsequently rupture.

Treatment options for impetigo include both topical and systemic antibiotics. Topical therapy is preferred for patients with limited skin involvement, while systemic therapy is indicated for patients with numerous lesions. Mupirocin and retapamulin are first-line topical treatments. Systemic antibiotic therapy should provide coverage for both S. aureus and streptococcal infections; cephalexin and dicloxacillin are preferred. Doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or clindamycin can be used if methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is suspected.³

This patient was advised to try warm soaks (to reduce the crusting) and to follow that with the application of white petrolatum bid. The patient was also prescribed doxycycline 100 mg orally bid for 10 days. At the 1-month follow-up, there was some residual erythema, but the impetigo and crusting had resolved. The actinic keratoses had resolved, as well.

‌

Image courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD. Text courtesy of Tess Pei Lemon, BA, University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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