User login
Tuberculosis Prevention Brings Economic Gains, Says WHO
A new study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in addition to providing significant improvements in public health, investment in the diagnosis and prevention of tuberculosis also generates economic benefits.
According to a survey conducted by governments and researchers from Brazil, Georgia, Kenya, and South Africa, even modest increases in funding for measures against tuberculosis can bring gains. Every $1 invested produces returns of as much as $39, it found.
The findings may remind governments and policymakers about the importance of investing in public health policies. According to the WHO, the study “provides strong economic arguments” about the true costs of tuberculosis and proves the benefits of increasing funding to accelerate the diagnosis and preventive treatment of the disease.
UN Targets Tuberculosis
In September 2023, during the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, following a widespread worsening of disease indicators because of the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders signed a declaration committing to the expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis during the next 5 years. The current WHO study was developed to provide a road map for the implementation of key measures against the disease.
The survey highlights two fundamental actions: The expansion of screening, especially in populations considered more vulnerable, and the provision of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT), which entails administering drugs to people who have been exposed to the disease but have not yet developed it.
“TPT is a proven and effective intervention to prevent the development of tuberculosis among exposed people, reducing the risk of developing the disease by about 60%-90% compared with individuals who did not receive it,” the document emphasized.
Investments Yield Returns
To achieve the necessary coverage levels, the study estimated that Brazil would need to increase annual per capita investment by $0.28 (about R$1.41) between 2024 and 2050. Brazilian society, in turn, would receive a return of $11 (R$55.27) for every dollar invested.
For South Africa, whose per capita investment increase is estimated at $1.10 per year, the return would be even more significant: $39 for every dollar allocated.
The WHO emphasized that funding for combating the disease is much lower than the value of the damage it causes to nations. “Tuberculosis has high costs for society. Only a small proportion of these costs go directly to the health system (ranging from 1.7% in South Africa to 7.8% in Kenya). Most are costs for patients and society.”
The study projected that between 2024 and 2050, the total cost of tuberculosis to Brazilian society would be $81.2 billion, with an average annual value of $3.01 billion. This figure represents, in 2024, 0.16% of the country’s gross domestic product.
Achieving screening and preventive treatment goals in Brazil would lead to a reduction of as much as 18% in the national incidence of the disease, as well as 1.9 million fewer deaths, between 2024 and 2050.
Although treatable and preventable, tuberculosis remains the leading cause of death from infectious agents worldwide. It is estimated that over 1.3 million people died from the disease in 2022.
The document provides the “health and economic justification for investing in evidence-based interventions recommended by WHO in tuberculosis screening and prevention,” according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.
“Today we have the knowledge, tools, and political commitment that can end this age-old disease that continues to be one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide,” he added.
Emerging Concerns
Although the WHO highlighted the global increase in access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in 2022, which coincided with the recovery of healthcare systems in several countries after the beginning of the pandemic, it emphasized that the implementation of preventive treatment for exposed individuals and high-vulnerability populations remains slow.
Another concern is the increase in drug resistance. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is considered a public health crisis. It is estimated that about 410,000 people had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in 2022, but only two of every five patients had access to treatment.This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
A new study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in addition to providing significant improvements in public health, investment in the diagnosis and prevention of tuberculosis also generates economic benefits.
According to a survey conducted by governments and researchers from Brazil, Georgia, Kenya, and South Africa, even modest increases in funding for measures against tuberculosis can bring gains. Every $1 invested produces returns of as much as $39, it found.
The findings may remind governments and policymakers about the importance of investing in public health policies. According to the WHO, the study “provides strong economic arguments” about the true costs of tuberculosis and proves the benefits of increasing funding to accelerate the diagnosis and preventive treatment of the disease.
UN Targets Tuberculosis
In September 2023, during the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, following a widespread worsening of disease indicators because of the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders signed a declaration committing to the expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis during the next 5 years. The current WHO study was developed to provide a road map for the implementation of key measures against the disease.
The survey highlights two fundamental actions: The expansion of screening, especially in populations considered more vulnerable, and the provision of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT), which entails administering drugs to people who have been exposed to the disease but have not yet developed it.
“TPT is a proven and effective intervention to prevent the development of tuberculosis among exposed people, reducing the risk of developing the disease by about 60%-90% compared with individuals who did not receive it,” the document emphasized.
Investments Yield Returns
To achieve the necessary coverage levels, the study estimated that Brazil would need to increase annual per capita investment by $0.28 (about R$1.41) between 2024 and 2050. Brazilian society, in turn, would receive a return of $11 (R$55.27) for every dollar invested.
For South Africa, whose per capita investment increase is estimated at $1.10 per year, the return would be even more significant: $39 for every dollar allocated.
The WHO emphasized that funding for combating the disease is much lower than the value of the damage it causes to nations. “Tuberculosis has high costs for society. Only a small proportion of these costs go directly to the health system (ranging from 1.7% in South Africa to 7.8% in Kenya). Most are costs for patients and society.”
The study projected that between 2024 and 2050, the total cost of tuberculosis to Brazilian society would be $81.2 billion, with an average annual value of $3.01 billion. This figure represents, in 2024, 0.16% of the country’s gross domestic product.
Achieving screening and preventive treatment goals in Brazil would lead to a reduction of as much as 18% in the national incidence of the disease, as well as 1.9 million fewer deaths, between 2024 and 2050.
Although treatable and preventable, tuberculosis remains the leading cause of death from infectious agents worldwide. It is estimated that over 1.3 million people died from the disease in 2022.
The document provides the “health and economic justification for investing in evidence-based interventions recommended by WHO in tuberculosis screening and prevention,” according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.
“Today we have the knowledge, tools, and political commitment that can end this age-old disease that continues to be one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide,” he added.
Emerging Concerns
Although the WHO highlighted the global increase in access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in 2022, which coincided with the recovery of healthcare systems in several countries after the beginning of the pandemic, it emphasized that the implementation of preventive treatment for exposed individuals and high-vulnerability populations remains slow.
Another concern is the increase in drug resistance. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is considered a public health crisis. It is estimated that about 410,000 people had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in 2022, but only two of every five patients had access to treatment.This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
A new study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in addition to providing significant improvements in public health, investment in the diagnosis and prevention of tuberculosis also generates economic benefits.
According to a survey conducted by governments and researchers from Brazil, Georgia, Kenya, and South Africa, even modest increases in funding for measures against tuberculosis can bring gains. Every $1 invested produces returns of as much as $39, it found.
The findings may remind governments and policymakers about the importance of investing in public health policies. According to the WHO, the study “provides strong economic arguments” about the true costs of tuberculosis and proves the benefits of increasing funding to accelerate the diagnosis and preventive treatment of the disease.
UN Targets Tuberculosis
In September 2023, during the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, following a widespread worsening of disease indicators because of the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders signed a declaration committing to the expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis during the next 5 years. The current WHO study was developed to provide a road map for the implementation of key measures against the disease.
The survey highlights two fundamental actions: The expansion of screening, especially in populations considered more vulnerable, and the provision of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT), which entails administering drugs to people who have been exposed to the disease but have not yet developed it.
“TPT is a proven and effective intervention to prevent the development of tuberculosis among exposed people, reducing the risk of developing the disease by about 60%-90% compared with individuals who did not receive it,” the document emphasized.
Investments Yield Returns
To achieve the necessary coverage levels, the study estimated that Brazil would need to increase annual per capita investment by $0.28 (about R$1.41) between 2024 and 2050. Brazilian society, in turn, would receive a return of $11 (R$55.27) for every dollar invested.
For South Africa, whose per capita investment increase is estimated at $1.10 per year, the return would be even more significant: $39 for every dollar allocated.
The WHO emphasized that funding for combating the disease is much lower than the value of the damage it causes to nations. “Tuberculosis has high costs for society. Only a small proportion of these costs go directly to the health system (ranging from 1.7% in South Africa to 7.8% in Kenya). Most are costs for patients and society.”
The study projected that between 2024 and 2050, the total cost of tuberculosis to Brazilian society would be $81.2 billion, with an average annual value of $3.01 billion. This figure represents, in 2024, 0.16% of the country’s gross domestic product.
Achieving screening and preventive treatment goals in Brazil would lead to a reduction of as much as 18% in the national incidence of the disease, as well as 1.9 million fewer deaths, between 2024 and 2050.
Although treatable and preventable, tuberculosis remains the leading cause of death from infectious agents worldwide. It is estimated that over 1.3 million people died from the disease in 2022.
The document provides the “health and economic justification for investing in evidence-based interventions recommended by WHO in tuberculosis screening and prevention,” according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.
“Today we have the knowledge, tools, and political commitment that can end this age-old disease that continues to be one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide,” he added.
Emerging Concerns
Although the WHO highlighted the global increase in access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in 2022, which coincided with the recovery of healthcare systems in several countries after the beginning of the pandemic, it emphasized that the implementation of preventive treatment for exposed individuals and high-vulnerability populations remains slow.
Another concern is the increase in drug resistance. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is considered a public health crisis. It is estimated that about 410,000 people had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in 2022, but only two of every five patients had access to treatment.This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Smartphone App Detects Early Signs of Frontotemporal Dementia
, new research showed.
Cognitive tests administered remotely on the phone “showed similar findings as our gold standard in-clinic cognitive tests and brain imaging,” said study investigator Adam M. Staffaroni, PhD, with the Memory and Aging Center, University of California San Francisco.
“We also provided evidence that these assessments may be useful for detecting early symptoms of the disease at a level that is on par, or perhaps slightly better, than our gold standard in-person tests,” Dr. Staffaroni said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Tough to Diagnose
Although relatively rare, FTD is the top cause of dementia in patients younger than 60 years. Patients are usually diagnosed relatively late in the disease because they are young and because their symptoms may be mistaken for psychiatric disorders.
In addition, behavioral and motor symptoms of FTD can make it hard for families to get to an academic center for in-clinic assessments, making remote assessments a huge need.
Dr. Staffaroni and colleagues with the ALLFTD Consortium partnered with software company Datacubed Health to develop the ALLFTD-mApp, which includes cognitive, motor, and speech tasks.
They assessed the reliability and validity of the app, against standard in-clinic assessments, in 350 individuals (mean age, 54 years; 58% women; mean education level, 16.5 years).
Among the 329 individuals with data on disease stage, 195 (59%) were asymptomatic or had preclinical FTD, 66 (20%) had prodromal FTD, and 68 (21%) had symptomatic FTD with a range of clinical syndromes.
The smartphone app showed “moderate to excellent” reliability within a single administration (ie, internally consistent) and across repeated assessments (ie, test-retest reliability), the researchers reported.
Validity was supported by association of smartphones tests with disease severity, criterion-standard neuropsychological tests, and brain volume, they noted.
Of Great Interest
They also reported that a composite of brief smartphone tests accurately distinguished dementia from cognitively unimpaired participants, screening out participants without symptoms, and detected prodromal FTD with greater sensitivity than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
“This tool is currently being used in several research studies. The remote aspect of this technology is important because it could allow researchers to collect data more frequently, which may give them a more accurate picture of the disease. Furthermore, researchers can be more inclusive in their study designs and include participants who otherwise might have difficulty traveling to academic centers for standard in-person visits,” said Dr. Staffaroni.
“Because the app appears sensitive to early stages of the disease, it could be also used as a screening tool, possibly alongside other remote data collection, to help identify participants that might be appropriate for a clinical trial. At this point, these technologies are not ready for clinical use and require additional research studies to understand their clinical utility,” he cautioned.
Commenting on the study, Walter Kukull, PhD, director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, noted that “remote direct and indirect testing/telemetry are of great interest to the field and are being examined carefully in comparison to in-person means both for validity and possibly earlier recognition.”
This research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration, the Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, the Rainwater Charitable Foundation, and the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation. Dr. Staffaroni reported being a coinventor of four ALLFTD mobile application tasks (not analyzed in the current study); receiving licensing fees from Datacubed Health and research support from the National Institute on Aging of the NIH, Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation, and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; and consulting for Alector Inc., Eli Lilly and Company Prevail Therapeutics, Passage Bio Inc, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kukull participated in the ALLFTD Consortium.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
Cognitive tests administered remotely on the phone “showed similar findings as our gold standard in-clinic cognitive tests and brain imaging,” said study investigator Adam M. Staffaroni, PhD, with the Memory and Aging Center, University of California San Francisco.
“We also provided evidence that these assessments may be useful for detecting early symptoms of the disease at a level that is on par, or perhaps slightly better, than our gold standard in-person tests,” Dr. Staffaroni said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Tough to Diagnose
Although relatively rare, FTD is the top cause of dementia in patients younger than 60 years. Patients are usually diagnosed relatively late in the disease because they are young and because their symptoms may be mistaken for psychiatric disorders.
In addition, behavioral and motor symptoms of FTD can make it hard for families to get to an academic center for in-clinic assessments, making remote assessments a huge need.
Dr. Staffaroni and colleagues with the ALLFTD Consortium partnered with software company Datacubed Health to develop the ALLFTD-mApp, which includes cognitive, motor, and speech tasks.
They assessed the reliability and validity of the app, against standard in-clinic assessments, in 350 individuals (mean age, 54 years; 58% women; mean education level, 16.5 years).
Among the 329 individuals with data on disease stage, 195 (59%) were asymptomatic or had preclinical FTD, 66 (20%) had prodromal FTD, and 68 (21%) had symptomatic FTD with a range of clinical syndromes.
The smartphone app showed “moderate to excellent” reliability within a single administration (ie, internally consistent) and across repeated assessments (ie, test-retest reliability), the researchers reported.
Validity was supported by association of smartphones tests with disease severity, criterion-standard neuropsychological tests, and brain volume, they noted.
Of Great Interest
They also reported that a composite of brief smartphone tests accurately distinguished dementia from cognitively unimpaired participants, screening out participants without symptoms, and detected prodromal FTD with greater sensitivity than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
“This tool is currently being used in several research studies. The remote aspect of this technology is important because it could allow researchers to collect data more frequently, which may give them a more accurate picture of the disease. Furthermore, researchers can be more inclusive in their study designs and include participants who otherwise might have difficulty traveling to academic centers for standard in-person visits,” said Dr. Staffaroni.
“Because the app appears sensitive to early stages of the disease, it could be also used as a screening tool, possibly alongside other remote data collection, to help identify participants that might be appropriate for a clinical trial. At this point, these technologies are not ready for clinical use and require additional research studies to understand their clinical utility,” he cautioned.
Commenting on the study, Walter Kukull, PhD, director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, noted that “remote direct and indirect testing/telemetry are of great interest to the field and are being examined carefully in comparison to in-person means both for validity and possibly earlier recognition.”
This research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration, the Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, the Rainwater Charitable Foundation, and the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation. Dr. Staffaroni reported being a coinventor of four ALLFTD mobile application tasks (not analyzed in the current study); receiving licensing fees from Datacubed Health and research support from the National Institute on Aging of the NIH, Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation, and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; and consulting for Alector Inc., Eli Lilly and Company Prevail Therapeutics, Passage Bio Inc, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kukull participated in the ALLFTD Consortium.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
Cognitive tests administered remotely on the phone “showed similar findings as our gold standard in-clinic cognitive tests and brain imaging,” said study investigator Adam M. Staffaroni, PhD, with the Memory and Aging Center, University of California San Francisco.
“We also provided evidence that these assessments may be useful for detecting early symptoms of the disease at a level that is on par, or perhaps slightly better, than our gold standard in-person tests,” Dr. Staffaroni said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Tough to Diagnose
Although relatively rare, FTD is the top cause of dementia in patients younger than 60 years. Patients are usually diagnosed relatively late in the disease because they are young and because their symptoms may be mistaken for psychiatric disorders.
In addition, behavioral and motor symptoms of FTD can make it hard for families to get to an academic center for in-clinic assessments, making remote assessments a huge need.
Dr. Staffaroni and colleagues with the ALLFTD Consortium partnered with software company Datacubed Health to develop the ALLFTD-mApp, which includes cognitive, motor, and speech tasks.
They assessed the reliability and validity of the app, against standard in-clinic assessments, in 350 individuals (mean age, 54 years; 58% women; mean education level, 16.5 years).
Among the 329 individuals with data on disease stage, 195 (59%) were asymptomatic or had preclinical FTD, 66 (20%) had prodromal FTD, and 68 (21%) had symptomatic FTD with a range of clinical syndromes.
The smartphone app showed “moderate to excellent” reliability within a single administration (ie, internally consistent) and across repeated assessments (ie, test-retest reliability), the researchers reported.
Validity was supported by association of smartphones tests with disease severity, criterion-standard neuropsychological tests, and brain volume, they noted.
Of Great Interest
They also reported that a composite of brief smartphone tests accurately distinguished dementia from cognitively unimpaired participants, screening out participants without symptoms, and detected prodromal FTD with greater sensitivity than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
“This tool is currently being used in several research studies. The remote aspect of this technology is important because it could allow researchers to collect data more frequently, which may give them a more accurate picture of the disease. Furthermore, researchers can be more inclusive in their study designs and include participants who otherwise might have difficulty traveling to academic centers for standard in-person visits,” said Dr. Staffaroni.
“Because the app appears sensitive to early stages of the disease, it could be also used as a screening tool, possibly alongside other remote data collection, to help identify participants that might be appropriate for a clinical trial. At this point, these technologies are not ready for clinical use and require additional research studies to understand their clinical utility,” he cautioned.
Commenting on the study, Walter Kukull, PhD, director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, noted that “remote direct and indirect testing/telemetry are of great interest to the field and are being examined carefully in comparison to in-person means both for validity and possibly earlier recognition.”
This research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration, the Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, the Rainwater Charitable Foundation, and the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation. Dr. Staffaroni reported being a coinventor of four ALLFTD mobile application tasks (not analyzed in the current study); receiving licensing fees from Datacubed Health and research support from the National Institute on Aging of the NIH, Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation, and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; and consulting for Alector Inc., Eli Lilly and Company Prevail Therapeutics, Passage Bio Inc, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kukull participated in the ALLFTD Consortium.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Nontraditional Risk Factors Play an Outsized Role in Young Adult Stroke Risk
, new research showed.
The findings may offer insight into the increased incidence of stroke in adults under age 45, which has more than doubled in the past 20 years in high-income countries, while incidence in those over 45 has decreased.
Investigators believe the findings are important because most conventional prevention efforts focus on traditional risk factors.
“The younger they are at the time of stroke, the more likely their stroke is due to a nontraditional risk factor,” lead author Michelle Leppert, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, said in a news release.
The findings were published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
Traditional Versus Nontraditional
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 2618 stroke cases (52% female; 73% ischemic stroke) that resulted in an inpatient admission and 7827 controls, all aged 18-55 years. Data came from the Colorado All Payer Claims Database between January 2012 and April 2019. Controls were matched by age, sex, and insurance type.
Traditional risk factors were defined as being a well-established risk factor for stroke that is routinely noted during stroke prevention screenings in older adults, including hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, substance use disorder, and obesity.
Nontraditional risk factors were defined as those that are rarely cited as a cause of stroke in older adults, including migraines, malignancy, HIV, hepatitis, thrombophilia, autoimmune disease, vasculitis, sickle cell disease, heart valve disease, renal failure, and hormonal risk factors in women, such as oral contraceptives, pregnancy, or puerperium.
Overall, traditional risk factors were more common in stroke cases, with nontraditional factors playing a smaller role. However, among adults aged 18-34 years, more strokes were associated with nontraditional than traditional risk factors in men (31% vs 25%, respectively) and in women (43% vs 33%, respectively).
Migraine, the most common nontraditional risk factor for stroke in this younger age group, was found in 20% of men (odds ratio [OR], 3.9) and 35% of women (OR, 3.3).
Other notable nontraditional risk factors included heart valve disease in both men and women (OR, 3.1 and OR, 4.2, respectively); renal failure in men (OR, 8.9); and autoimmune diseases in women (OR, 8.8).
An Underestimate?
The contribution of nontraditional risk factors declined with age. After the age of 44, they were no longer significant. Hypertension was the most important traditional risk factor and increased in contribution with age.
“There have been many studies demonstrating the association between migraines and strokes, but to our knowledge, this study may be the first to demonstrate just how much stroke risk may be attributable to migraines,” Dr. Leppert said.
Overall, women had significantly more risk factors for stroke than men. Among controls, 52% and 34% of women had at least one traditional and nontraditional risk factors, respectively, compared with 48% and 22% in men.
The total contribution of nontraditional risk factors was likely an underestimate because some such factors, including the autoimmune disorder antiphospholipid syndrome and patent foramen ovale, “lacked reliable administrative algorithms” and could not be assessed in this study, the researchers noted.
Further research on how nontraditional risk factors affect strokes could lead to better prevention.
“We need to better understand the underlying mechanisms of these nontraditional risk factors to develop targeted interventions,” Dr. Leppert said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award. Dr. Leppert reports receiving an American Heart Association Career Development Grant. Other disclosures are included in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
The findings may offer insight into the increased incidence of stroke in adults under age 45, which has more than doubled in the past 20 years in high-income countries, while incidence in those over 45 has decreased.
Investigators believe the findings are important because most conventional prevention efforts focus on traditional risk factors.
“The younger they are at the time of stroke, the more likely their stroke is due to a nontraditional risk factor,” lead author Michelle Leppert, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, said in a news release.
The findings were published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
Traditional Versus Nontraditional
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 2618 stroke cases (52% female; 73% ischemic stroke) that resulted in an inpatient admission and 7827 controls, all aged 18-55 years. Data came from the Colorado All Payer Claims Database between January 2012 and April 2019. Controls were matched by age, sex, and insurance type.
Traditional risk factors were defined as being a well-established risk factor for stroke that is routinely noted during stroke prevention screenings in older adults, including hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, substance use disorder, and obesity.
Nontraditional risk factors were defined as those that are rarely cited as a cause of stroke in older adults, including migraines, malignancy, HIV, hepatitis, thrombophilia, autoimmune disease, vasculitis, sickle cell disease, heart valve disease, renal failure, and hormonal risk factors in women, such as oral contraceptives, pregnancy, or puerperium.
Overall, traditional risk factors were more common in stroke cases, with nontraditional factors playing a smaller role. However, among adults aged 18-34 years, more strokes were associated with nontraditional than traditional risk factors in men (31% vs 25%, respectively) and in women (43% vs 33%, respectively).
Migraine, the most common nontraditional risk factor for stroke in this younger age group, was found in 20% of men (odds ratio [OR], 3.9) and 35% of women (OR, 3.3).
Other notable nontraditional risk factors included heart valve disease in both men and women (OR, 3.1 and OR, 4.2, respectively); renal failure in men (OR, 8.9); and autoimmune diseases in women (OR, 8.8).
An Underestimate?
The contribution of nontraditional risk factors declined with age. After the age of 44, they were no longer significant. Hypertension was the most important traditional risk factor and increased in contribution with age.
“There have been many studies demonstrating the association between migraines and strokes, but to our knowledge, this study may be the first to demonstrate just how much stroke risk may be attributable to migraines,” Dr. Leppert said.
Overall, women had significantly more risk factors for stroke than men. Among controls, 52% and 34% of women had at least one traditional and nontraditional risk factors, respectively, compared with 48% and 22% in men.
The total contribution of nontraditional risk factors was likely an underestimate because some such factors, including the autoimmune disorder antiphospholipid syndrome and patent foramen ovale, “lacked reliable administrative algorithms” and could not be assessed in this study, the researchers noted.
Further research on how nontraditional risk factors affect strokes could lead to better prevention.
“We need to better understand the underlying mechanisms of these nontraditional risk factors to develop targeted interventions,” Dr. Leppert said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award. Dr. Leppert reports receiving an American Heart Association Career Development Grant. Other disclosures are included in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
The findings may offer insight into the increased incidence of stroke in adults under age 45, which has more than doubled in the past 20 years in high-income countries, while incidence in those over 45 has decreased.
Investigators believe the findings are important because most conventional prevention efforts focus on traditional risk factors.
“The younger they are at the time of stroke, the more likely their stroke is due to a nontraditional risk factor,” lead author Michelle Leppert, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, said in a news release.
The findings were published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
Traditional Versus Nontraditional
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 2618 stroke cases (52% female; 73% ischemic stroke) that resulted in an inpatient admission and 7827 controls, all aged 18-55 years. Data came from the Colorado All Payer Claims Database between January 2012 and April 2019. Controls were matched by age, sex, and insurance type.
Traditional risk factors were defined as being a well-established risk factor for stroke that is routinely noted during stroke prevention screenings in older adults, including hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, substance use disorder, and obesity.
Nontraditional risk factors were defined as those that are rarely cited as a cause of stroke in older adults, including migraines, malignancy, HIV, hepatitis, thrombophilia, autoimmune disease, vasculitis, sickle cell disease, heart valve disease, renal failure, and hormonal risk factors in women, such as oral contraceptives, pregnancy, or puerperium.
Overall, traditional risk factors were more common in stroke cases, with nontraditional factors playing a smaller role. However, among adults aged 18-34 years, more strokes were associated with nontraditional than traditional risk factors in men (31% vs 25%, respectively) and in women (43% vs 33%, respectively).
Migraine, the most common nontraditional risk factor for stroke in this younger age group, was found in 20% of men (odds ratio [OR], 3.9) and 35% of women (OR, 3.3).
Other notable nontraditional risk factors included heart valve disease in both men and women (OR, 3.1 and OR, 4.2, respectively); renal failure in men (OR, 8.9); and autoimmune diseases in women (OR, 8.8).
An Underestimate?
The contribution of nontraditional risk factors declined with age. After the age of 44, they were no longer significant. Hypertension was the most important traditional risk factor and increased in contribution with age.
“There have been many studies demonstrating the association between migraines and strokes, but to our knowledge, this study may be the first to demonstrate just how much stroke risk may be attributable to migraines,” Dr. Leppert said.
Overall, women had significantly more risk factors for stroke than men. Among controls, 52% and 34% of women had at least one traditional and nontraditional risk factors, respectively, compared with 48% and 22% in men.
The total contribution of nontraditional risk factors was likely an underestimate because some such factors, including the autoimmune disorder antiphospholipid syndrome and patent foramen ovale, “lacked reliable administrative algorithms” and could not be assessed in this study, the researchers noted.
Further research on how nontraditional risk factors affect strokes could lead to better prevention.
“We need to better understand the underlying mechanisms of these nontraditional risk factors to develop targeted interventions,” Dr. Leppert said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award. Dr. Leppert reports receiving an American Heart Association Career Development Grant. Other disclosures are included in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES
Bone Infections Increase After S. aureus Bacteremia in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis
TOPLINE:
After Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face nearly double the risk for osteoarticular infections compared with those without RA, with similar mortality risks in both groups.
METHODOLOGY:
- The contraction of S aureus bacteremia is linked to poor clinical outcomes in patients with RA; however, no well-sized studies have evaluated the risk for osteoarticular infections and mortality outcomes in patients with RA following S aureus bacteremia.
- This Danish nationwide cohort study aimed to explore whether the cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections and death would be higher in patients with RA than in those without RA after contracting S aureus bacteremia.
- The study cohort included 18,274 patients with a first episode of S aureus bacteremia between 2006 and 2018, of whom 367 had been diagnosed with RA before contracting S aureus bacteremia.
- The RA cohort had more women (62%) and a higher median age of participants (73 years) than the non-RA cohort (37% women; median age of participants, 70 years).
TAKEAWAY:
- The 90-day cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections (septic arthritis, spondylitis, osteomyelitis, psoas muscle abscess, or prosthetic joint infection) was nearly double in patients with RA compared with in those without RA (23.1% vs 12.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.54-2.41).
- In patients with RA, the risk for osteoarticular infections increased with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.29-3.98) and orthopedic implants (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.08-2.85).
- Moreover, 90-day all-cause mortality was comparable in the RA (35.4%) and non-RA cohorts (33.9%).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings stress the need for vigilance in patients with RA who present with S aureus bacteremia to ensure timely identification and treatment of osteoarticular infections, especially in current TNFi [tumor necrosis factor inhibitor] users and patients with orthopedic implants,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Sabine S. Dieperink, MD, of the Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Denmark, was published online March 9 in Rheumatology (Oxford).
LIMITATIONS:
There might have been chances of misclassification of metastatic S aureus infections owing to the lack of specificity in diagnoses or procedure codes. This study relied on administrative data to record osteoarticular infections, which might have led investigators to underestimate the true cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections. Also, some patients might have passed away before being diagnosed with osteoarticular infection owing to the high mortality.
DISCLOSURES:
This work was supported by grants from The Danish Rheumatism Association and Beckett Fonden. Some of the authors, including the lead author, declared receiving grants from various funding agencies and other sources, including pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
After Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face nearly double the risk for osteoarticular infections compared with those without RA, with similar mortality risks in both groups.
METHODOLOGY:
- The contraction of S aureus bacteremia is linked to poor clinical outcomes in patients with RA; however, no well-sized studies have evaluated the risk for osteoarticular infections and mortality outcomes in patients with RA following S aureus bacteremia.
- This Danish nationwide cohort study aimed to explore whether the cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections and death would be higher in patients with RA than in those without RA after contracting S aureus bacteremia.
- The study cohort included 18,274 patients with a first episode of S aureus bacteremia between 2006 and 2018, of whom 367 had been diagnosed with RA before contracting S aureus bacteremia.
- The RA cohort had more women (62%) and a higher median age of participants (73 years) than the non-RA cohort (37% women; median age of participants, 70 years).
TAKEAWAY:
- The 90-day cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections (septic arthritis, spondylitis, osteomyelitis, psoas muscle abscess, or prosthetic joint infection) was nearly double in patients with RA compared with in those without RA (23.1% vs 12.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.54-2.41).
- In patients with RA, the risk for osteoarticular infections increased with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.29-3.98) and orthopedic implants (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.08-2.85).
- Moreover, 90-day all-cause mortality was comparable in the RA (35.4%) and non-RA cohorts (33.9%).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings stress the need for vigilance in patients with RA who present with S aureus bacteremia to ensure timely identification and treatment of osteoarticular infections, especially in current TNFi [tumor necrosis factor inhibitor] users and patients with orthopedic implants,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Sabine S. Dieperink, MD, of the Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Denmark, was published online March 9 in Rheumatology (Oxford).
LIMITATIONS:
There might have been chances of misclassification of metastatic S aureus infections owing to the lack of specificity in diagnoses or procedure codes. This study relied on administrative data to record osteoarticular infections, which might have led investigators to underestimate the true cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections. Also, some patients might have passed away before being diagnosed with osteoarticular infection owing to the high mortality.
DISCLOSURES:
This work was supported by grants from The Danish Rheumatism Association and Beckett Fonden. Some of the authors, including the lead author, declared receiving grants from various funding agencies and other sources, including pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
After Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face nearly double the risk for osteoarticular infections compared with those without RA, with similar mortality risks in both groups.
METHODOLOGY:
- The contraction of S aureus bacteremia is linked to poor clinical outcomes in patients with RA; however, no well-sized studies have evaluated the risk for osteoarticular infections and mortality outcomes in patients with RA following S aureus bacteremia.
- This Danish nationwide cohort study aimed to explore whether the cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections and death would be higher in patients with RA than in those without RA after contracting S aureus bacteremia.
- The study cohort included 18,274 patients with a first episode of S aureus bacteremia between 2006 and 2018, of whom 367 had been diagnosed with RA before contracting S aureus bacteremia.
- The RA cohort had more women (62%) and a higher median age of participants (73 years) than the non-RA cohort (37% women; median age of participants, 70 years).
TAKEAWAY:
- The 90-day cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections (septic arthritis, spondylitis, osteomyelitis, psoas muscle abscess, or prosthetic joint infection) was nearly double in patients with RA compared with in those without RA (23.1% vs 12.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.54-2.41).
- In patients with RA, the risk for osteoarticular infections increased with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.29-3.98) and orthopedic implants (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.08-2.85).
- Moreover, 90-day all-cause mortality was comparable in the RA (35.4%) and non-RA cohorts (33.9%).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings stress the need for vigilance in patients with RA who present with S aureus bacteremia to ensure timely identification and treatment of osteoarticular infections, especially in current TNFi [tumor necrosis factor inhibitor] users and patients with orthopedic implants,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Sabine S. Dieperink, MD, of the Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Denmark, was published online March 9 in Rheumatology (Oxford).
LIMITATIONS:
There might have been chances of misclassification of metastatic S aureus infections owing to the lack of specificity in diagnoses or procedure codes. This study relied on administrative data to record osteoarticular infections, which might have led investigators to underestimate the true cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections. Also, some patients might have passed away before being diagnosed with osteoarticular infection owing to the high mortality.
DISCLOSURES:
This work was supported by grants from The Danish Rheumatism Association and Beckett Fonden. Some of the authors, including the lead author, declared receiving grants from various funding agencies and other sources, including pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Study Shows Nirmatrelvir–Ritonavir No More Effective Than Placebo for COVID-19 Symptom Relief
Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found.
The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers.
“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”
The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).
However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.
Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said.
She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.
More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%).
In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7).
The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote.
Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.
Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease.
“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”
The study was supported by Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found.
The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers.
“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”
The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).
However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.
Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said.
She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.
More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%).
In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7).
The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote.
Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.
Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease.
“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”
The study was supported by Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found.
The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers.
“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”
The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).
However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.
Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said.
She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.
More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%).
In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7).
The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote.
Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.
Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease.
“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”
The study was supported by Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Should Opioids Be Used for Chronic Cancer Pain?
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
FROM CANCER
Can VAP be prevented? New data suggest so
Chest Infections and Disaster Response Network
Chest Infections Section
The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of VAP has been the subject of several studies in recent years. Three large randomized controlled trials, all published since late 2022, have investigated whether antibiotics can prevent VAP and the optimal method of antibiotic administration.
In the AMIKINHAL trial, patients intubated for at least 72 hours in 19 ICUs in France received inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 3 days.1 Compared with placebo, there was a statistically significant, 7% absolute risk reduction in rate of VAP at 28 days.
In the SUDDICU trial, patients suspected to be intubated for at least 48 hours in 19 ICUs in Australia received a combination of oral paste and gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin every 6 hours along with 4 days of intravenous antibiotics.2 There was no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality; however, there was a statistically significant, 12% reduction in the isolation of antibiotic-resistant organisms in cultures.
In the PROPHY-VAP trial, patients with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS ] ≤12) intubated for at least 48 hours in 9 ICUs in France received a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g) within 12 hours of intubation.3 There was an 18% absolute risk reduction in VAP from days 2 to 7 post-ventilation.
These trials, involving distinct patient populations and interventions, indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce VAP risk under specific circumstances, but its effect on overall outcomes is still uncertain. The understanding of prophylactic antibiotics in VAP prevention is rapidly evolving.
References
1. Ehrmann S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(22):2052-2062.
2. Myburgh JA, et al. JAMA. 2022;328(19):1911-1921.
3. Dahyot-Fizelier C, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;S2213-2600(23):00471-X.
Chest Infections and Disaster Response Network
Chest Infections Section
The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of VAP has been the subject of several studies in recent years. Three large randomized controlled trials, all published since late 2022, have investigated whether antibiotics can prevent VAP and the optimal method of antibiotic administration.
In the AMIKINHAL trial, patients intubated for at least 72 hours in 19 ICUs in France received inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 3 days.1 Compared with placebo, there was a statistically significant, 7% absolute risk reduction in rate of VAP at 28 days.
In the SUDDICU trial, patients suspected to be intubated for at least 48 hours in 19 ICUs in Australia received a combination of oral paste and gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin every 6 hours along with 4 days of intravenous antibiotics.2 There was no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality; however, there was a statistically significant, 12% reduction in the isolation of antibiotic-resistant organisms in cultures.
In the PROPHY-VAP trial, patients with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS ] ≤12) intubated for at least 48 hours in 9 ICUs in France received a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g) within 12 hours of intubation.3 There was an 18% absolute risk reduction in VAP from days 2 to 7 post-ventilation.
These trials, involving distinct patient populations and interventions, indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce VAP risk under specific circumstances, but its effect on overall outcomes is still uncertain. The understanding of prophylactic antibiotics in VAP prevention is rapidly evolving.
References
1. Ehrmann S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(22):2052-2062.
2. Myburgh JA, et al. JAMA. 2022;328(19):1911-1921.
3. Dahyot-Fizelier C, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;S2213-2600(23):00471-X.
Chest Infections and Disaster Response Network
Chest Infections Section
The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of VAP has been the subject of several studies in recent years. Three large randomized controlled trials, all published since late 2022, have investigated whether antibiotics can prevent VAP and the optimal method of antibiotic administration.
In the AMIKINHAL trial, patients intubated for at least 72 hours in 19 ICUs in France received inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 3 days.1 Compared with placebo, there was a statistically significant, 7% absolute risk reduction in rate of VAP at 28 days.
In the SUDDICU trial, patients suspected to be intubated for at least 48 hours in 19 ICUs in Australia received a combination of oral paste and gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin every 6 hours along with 4 days of intravenous antibiotics.2 There was no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality; however, there was a statistically significant, 12% reduction in the isolation of antibiotic-resistant organisms in cultures.
In the PROPHY-VAP trial, patients with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS ] ≤12) intubated for at least 48 hours in 9 ICUs in France received a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g) within 12 hours of intubation.3 There was an 18% absolute risk reduction in VAP from days 2 to 7 post-ventilation.
These trials, involving distinct patient populations and interventions, indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce VAP risk under specific circumstances, but its effect on overall outcomes is still uncertain. The understanding of prophylactic antibiotics in VAP prevention is rapidly evolving.
References
1. Ehrmann S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(22):2052-2062.
2. Myburgh JA, et al. JAMA. 2022;328(19):1911-1921.
3. Dahyot-Fizelier C, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;S2213-2600(23):00471-X.
Isoniazid Resistance Linked With Tuberculosis Deaths
In 2022, more than 78,000 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were reported in Brazil, with an incidence of 36.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. According to researchers from the Regional Prospective Observational Research for Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil consortium, the country could improve the control of this infection if all patients were subjected to a sensitivity test capable of early detection of resistance not only to rifampicin, but also to isoniazid, before starting treatment. A study by the consortium published this year in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found that monoresistance to isoniazid predicted unfavorable outcomes at the national level.
Isoniazid is part of the first-choice therapeutic regimen for patients with pulmonary TB. The regimen also includes rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. According to Bruno Andrade, MD, PhD, Afrânio Kritski, MD, PhD, and biotechnologist Mariana Araújo Pereira, PhD, researchers from RePORT International and RePORT-Brazil, this regimen is used during the intensive phase of treatment, which usually lasts for 2 months. It is followed by a maintenance phase of another 4 months, during which isoniazid and rifampicin continue to be administered. When monoresistance to isoniazid is detected, however, the recommendation is to use a regimen containing a quinolone instead of isoniazid.
Suboptimal Sensitivity Testing
Since 2015, Brazil’s Ministry of Health has recommended sensitivity testing for all suspected TB cases. In practice, however, this approach is not carried out in the ideal manner. The three researchers told the Medscape Portuguese edition that, according to data from the National Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) of the Ministry of Health, culture testing is conducted in about 30% of cases. Sensitivity testing to identify resistance to first-line drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide) and second-line drugs (quinolone and amikacin) is performed in only 12% of cases.
The initiative of the RePORT-Brazil group analyzed 21,197 TB cases registered in Sinan between June 2015 and June 2019 and identified a rate of monoresistance to isoniazid of 1.4%.
For the researchers, the problem of monoresistance to isoniazid in Brazil is still underestimated. This underestimation results from the infrequent performance of culture and sensitivity testing to detect resistance to first- and second-line drugs and because the XPERT MTB RIF test, which detects only rifampicin resistance, is still used.
Resistance and Worse Outcomes
The study also showed that the frequency of unfavorable outcomes in antituberculosis treatment (death or therapeutic failure) was significantly higher among patients with monoresistance to isoniazid (9.1% vs 3.05%).
The finding serves as a warning about the importance of increasing the administration of sensitivity tests to detect resistance to drugs used in tuberculosis treatment, including isoniazid.
Testing sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid before starting treatment could transform tuberculosis control in Brazil, allowing for more targeted and effective treatments from the outset, said the researchers. “This not only increases the chances of successful individual treatment but also helps prevent the transmission of resistant strains and develop a more accurate understanding of drug resistance trends,” they emphasized.
They pointed out, however, that implementing this testing in the Unified Health System depends on improvements in resource allocation, coordination between the national TB program and state and municipal programs, and improvements in infrastructure and the technical staff of the Central Public Health Laboratories.
“Although the initial cost is considerable, these investments can be offset by long-term savings resulting from the reduction in the use of more expensive and prolonged treatments for resistant tuberculosis,” said the researchers.
This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2022, more than 78,000 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were reported in Brazil, with an incidence of 36.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. According to researchers from the Regional Prospective Observational Research for Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil consortium, the country could improve the control of this infection if all patients were subjected to a sensitivity test capable of early detection of resistance not only to rifampicin, but also to isoniazid, before starting treatment. A study by the consortium published this year in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found that monoresistance to isoniazid predicted unfavorable outcomes at the national level.
Isoniazid is part of the first-choice therapeutic regimen for patients with pulmonary TB. The regimen also includes rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. According to Bruno Andrade, MD, PhD, Afrânio Kritski, MD, PhD, and biotechnologist Mariana Araújo Pereira, PhD, researchers from RePORT International and RePORT-Brazil, this regimen is used during the intensive phase of treatment, which usually lasts for 2 months. It is followed by a maintenance phase of another 4 months, during which isoniazid and rifampicin continue to be administered. When monoresistance to isoniazid is detected, however, the recommendation is to use a regimen containing a quinolone instead of isoniazid.
Suboptimal Sensitivity Testing
Since 2015, Brazil’s Ministry of Health has recommended sensitivity testing for all suspected TB cases. In practice, however, this approach is not carried out in the ideal manner. The three researchers told the Medscape Portuguese edition that, according to data from the National Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) of the Ministry of Health, culture testing is conducted in about 30% of cases. Sensitivity testing to identify resistance to first-line drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide) and second-line drugs (quinolone and amikacin) is performed in only 12% of cases.
The initiative of the RePORT-Brazil group analyzed 21,197 TB cases registered in Sinan between June 2015 and June 2019 and identified a rate of monoresistance to isoniazid of 1.4%.
For the researchers, the problem of monoresistance to isoniazid in Brazil is still underestimated. This underestimation results from the infrequent performance of culture and sensitivity testing to detect resistance to first- and second-line drugs and because the XPERT MTB RIF test, which detects only rifampicin resistance, is still used.
Resistance and Worse Outcomes
The study also showed that the frequency of unfavorable outcomes in antituberculosis treatment (death or therapeutic failure) was significantly higher among patients with monoresistance to isoniazid (9.1% vs 3.05%).
The finding serves as a warning about the importance of increasing the administration of sensitivity tests to detect resistance to drugs used in tuberculosis treatment, including isoniazid.
Testing sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid before starting treatment could transform tuberculosis control in Brazil, allowing for more targeted and effective treatments from the outset, said the researchers. “This not only increases the chances of successful individual treatment but also helps prevent the transmission of resistant strains and develop a more accurate understanding of drug resistance trends,” they emphasized.
They pointed out, however, that implementing this testing in the Unified Health System depends on improvements in resource allocation, coordination between the national TB program and state and municipal programs, and improvements in infrastructure and the technical staff of the Central Public Health Laboratories.
“Although the initial cost is considerable, these investments can be offset by long-term savings resulting from the reduction in the use of more expensive and prolonged treatments for resistant tuberculosis,” said the researchers.
This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2022, more than 78,000 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were reported in Brazil, with an incidence of 36.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. According to researchers from the Regional Prospective Observational Research for Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil consortium, the country could improve the control of this infection if all patients were subjected to a sensitivity test capable of early detection of resistance not only to rifampicin, but also to isoniazid, before starting treatment. A study by the consortium published this year in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found that monoresistance to isoniazid predicted unfavorable outcomes at the national level.
Isoniazid is part of the first-choice therapeutic regimen for patients with pulmonary TB. The regimen also includes rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. According to Bruno Andrade, MD, PhD, Afrânio Kritski, MD, PhD, and biotechnologist Mariana Araújo Pereira, PhD, researchers from RePORT International and RePORT-Brazil, this regimen is used during the intensive phase of treatment, which usually lasts for 2 months. It is followed by a maintenance phase of another 4 months, during which isoniazid and rifampicin continue to be administered. When monoresistance to isoniazid is detected, however, the recommendation is to use a regimen containing a quinolone instead of isoniazid.
Suboptimal Sensitivity Testing
Since 2015, Brazil’s Ministry of Health has recommended sensitivity testing for all suspected TB cases. In practice, however, this approach is not carried out in the ideal manner. The three researchers told the Medscape Portuguese edition that, according to data from the National Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) of the Ministry of Health, culture testing is conducted in about 30% of cases. Sensitivity testing to identify resistance to first-line drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide) and second-line drugs (quinolone and amikacin) is performed in only 12% of cases.
The initiative of the RePORT-Brazil group analyzed 21,197 TB cases registered in Sinan between June 2015 and June 2019 and identified a rate of monoresistance to isoniazid of 1.4%.
For the researchers, the problem of monoresistance to isoniazid in Brazil is still underestimated. This underestimation results from the infrequent performance of culture and sensitivity testing to detect resistance to first- and second-line drugs and because the XPERT MTB RIF test, which detects only rifampicin resistance, is still used.
Resistance and Worse Outcomes
The study also showed that the frequency of unfavorable outcomes in antituberculosis treatment (death or therapeutic failure) was significantly higher among patients with monoresistance to isoniazid (9.1% vs 3.05%).
The finding serves as a warning about the importance of increasing the administration of sensitivity tests to detect resistance to drugs used in tuberculosis treatment, including isoniazid.
Testing sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid before starting treatment could transform tuberculosis control in Brazil, allowing for more targeted and effective treatments from the outset, said the researchers. “This not only increases the chances of successful individual treatment but also helps prevent the transmission of resistant strains and develop a more accurate understanding of drug resistance trends,” they emphasized.
They pointed out, however, that implementing this testing in the Unified Health System depends on improvements in resource allocation, coordination between the national TB program and state and municipal programs, and improvements in infrastructure and the technical staff of the Central Public Health Laboratories.
“Although the initial cost is considerable, these investments can be offset by long-term savings resulting from the reduction in the use of more expensive and prolonged treatments for resistant tuberculosis,” said the researchers.
This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Older, Breastfeeding Mothers Face Differing Advice About Mammograms
When her obstetrician-gynecologist recommended a mammogram, Emily Legg didn’t hesitate to schedule an appointment for the screening.
Her grandmother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and her father died of prostate cancer in his mid-50s. Ms. Legg also has polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which increases the risk of some cancers.
Having just turned 40, Ms. Legg said she was determined to be as proactive as possible with cancer screenings.
Before the mammogram, she arranged for childcare for her 6-month-old daughter and filled out a required questionnaire online that asked about her history and health conditions. When the appointment day arrived, Ms. Legg made the 30-minute drive to the clinic where she was prepped for the procedure and escorted to the mammography room.
But just before the screening started, Ms. Legg happened to mention to the technician that she was breastfeeding. The surprised tech immediately halted the procedure, Ms. Legg said. Because of increased breast density caused by nursing, Ms. Legg was told to wait at least 6 weeks after weaning for a mammogram.
“I didn’t even consider that breastfeeding might prevent me from getting a mammogram,” said Ms. Legg, a writing professor from Hamilton, Ohio. “I had to go home. I was frustrated, mostly because I had driven all that way. I had hyped myself up. I had childcare in line. And now I had to wait until my daughter weaned? At the time, I didn’t know if my daughter was going to breastfeed for 2 years or be done at 6 months.”
Considering her family background, Ms. Legg worried about not receiving the screening. Her sister had recently undergone a mammogram while she was breastfeeding without any problems.
When she did research, Ms. Legg found conflicting information about the subject online so she turned to Reddit, where she started a thread asking if other moms over 40 had experienced similar issues. Dozens of moms responded with questions and concerns on the subject. Some wrote about being denied a mammogram while breastfeeding, while others wrote they received the procedure without question. Guidance from health professionals on the topic appeared to vastly differ.
“That’s why I turned to [social media] because I wasn’t finding anything else,” Ms. Legg said. “There’s just a lack of clear information. As an older mom, there’s less information out there for being postpartum and being over 40.”
Confusion over screenings during breastfeeding comes at the intersection of national guidelines lowering the recommended age for first mammograms, more women having babies later in life, and women getting breast cancer earlier.
Most physician specialty associations agree that mammography is safe for breastfeeding patients and that they need not delay routine screenings. However, the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is not well advertised, said Molly Peterson, MD, a radiologist based in St. Frances, Wisconsin, and lead author of a 2023 article about breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation in RadioGraphics, a journal of the Radiological Society of North America.
Conflicting information from nonscientific resources adds to the confusion, Dr. Peterson said. At the same time, health providers along the care spectrum may be uncertain about what imaging is safe and reasonable. Recommendations about mammography and lactation can also vary by institution, screening experts say.
“I’ve talked with pregnant and breastfeeding patients, both younger and older, who were unsure if they could have mammograms,” Dr. Peterson said. “I’ve also fielded questions from technologists, unclear what imaging we can offer these patients. ... Educating health professionals about evidence-based guidelines for screening and diagnostic imaging and reassuring patients about the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is thus more important than ever.”
Differing Guidelines, Case-by-Case Considerations
The RadioGraphics paper emphasizes that both screening and diagnostic imaging can be safely performed using protocols based on age, breast cancer risk, and whether the patient is pregnant or lactating.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria also support mammography for certain patients during lactation. The guidelines state there is no contraindication to performing mammography during lactation, but note that challenges in evaluation can arise because of the unique physiological and structural breast changes that can occur.
“Hormones can change breast density and size of the breast, which could limit the clinical examination, mimic pathology, and obscure mammographic findings,” said Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the ACR Breast Imaging Commission. “It is important the patient pumps right before the mammogram or brings the baby to breastfeed prior to the imaging examination to offer the best imaging evaluation and reduce breast density as much as possible.”
In those patients who choose to prolong breastfeeding and are of the age to be screened, it is important they undergo yearly clinical breast exams, perform breast self-exams, and discuss breast cancer screening with their healthcare provider, she said. “They should not delay a routine screening mammogram. Most patients have dense breast tissue at this time, and frequently a breast ultrasound may be performed also.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not have specific guidelines about breastfeeding mothers and mammography recommendations. Breastfeeding patients should discuss with their physicians or midwives the pros and cons of mammography, taking into account personal risk factors and how long they plan to nurse, said Joshua Copel, MD, vice chair of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a member of ACOG’s Committee on Obstetric Practice.
“The question for anybody to address with their physician will be, ‘Is my risk of breast cancer high enough that I should take that small risk that they’re going to over- or underread the mammogram because of my nursing status? Or should I wait until I wean the baby and have the mammogram then?’” he said.
Institutional and practice protocols meanwhile, can depend on a patient’s cancer risk.
Guidelines at the University of Wisconsin, for instance, advise that lactating patients 40 or over who are at average risk, wait 6-8 weeks after cessation of breastfeeding, said Alison Gegios, MD, a radiologist and assistant professor in breast imaging at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Average risk is defined as less than a 15% lifetime risk of breast cancer, she said.
Dr. Gegios, a coauthor on the RadioGraphics paper, said her institution recommends screening mammography if lactating patients are at intermediate or high risk, and are over 30. In such cases however, screening is generally deferred until 3-6 months after delivery, she noted.
“If patients are high risk, it’s also important to do screening breast MRIs,” Dr. Gegios said. “Studies have shown that screening breast MRIs are effective in breastfeeding patients despite their increased background parenchymal enhancement because breast cancer still stands out on our maximum intensity projections and stands out on the exam from the background.”
How to Clear Up Confusion, Promote Consistency
After her experience at the mammography practice, Ms. Legg went home and immediately sent a message to her ob.gyn. about what happened.
The doctor was similarly surprised and frustrated that Ms. Legg wasn’t able to get the mammogram, she said. To get around the difference in protocols, Ms. Legg’s ob.gyn. referred her to a high-risk clinic in Cincinnati. Ms. Legg’s history qualified her as high risk and she received genetic testing and a breast ultrasound at the clinic, she said.
“The ultrasound showed some shady spots,” Ms. Legg recalled. “They weren’t quite sure what they were. Another ultrasound later, they determined the spots were symmetrical and it ended up not being anything [serious]. Genetic-wise, I did not have any markers for cancer.”
Ms. Legg was relieved and she eventually received a mammogram when she finished breastfeeding, she said. However, she feels the overlap of older, breastfeeding moms and mammography guidelines deserves more attention.
“I would encourage all of us in the ‘geriatric mother’s club,’ to advocate for yourself, do your research, and also turn to your medical professionals and ask questions,” she said. “Make sure you know what they recommend for moms who are older and just had a baby.”
On the provider side, Dr. Destounis said physicians should revisit with patients the most updated guidelines about breastfeeding and mammography at routine appointments.
“Patients and their physicians have to have communication about screening for breast cancer if they are of screening age,” she said.
Dr. Copel advises physicians to run through the risks and benefits of mammograms with older, breastfeeding patients and make a shared decision. “It’s all going to vary with the individual circumstances,” he said. “If someone [has] a BRCA gene and their sister and mother had breast cancer, maybe it’s worth it. If somebody has absolutely no family history and just crossed the threshold for meeting a mammogram [recommendation], then sure, wait.”
Ms. Legg would like to see more professional literature and educational material directed toward the older, breastfeeding population about mammograms.
“At minimum, work together across departments to create an intake form, a questionnaire that is inclusive of everything,” she said. “There should be a question before you even get to the tech that asks, ‘Are you breastfeeding?’ ”
When her obstetrician-gynecologist recommended a mammogram, Emily Legg didn’t hesitate to schedule an appointment for the screening.
Her grandmother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and her father died of prostate cancer in his mid-50s. Ms. Legg also has polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which increases the risk of some cancers.
Having just turned 40, Ms. Legg said she was determined to be as proactive as possible with cancer screenings.
Before the mammogram, she arranged for childcare for her 6-month-old daughter and filled out a required questionnaire online that asked about her history and health conditions. When the appointment day arrived, Ms. Legg made the 30-minute drive to the clinic where she was prepped for the procedure and escorted to the mammography room.
But just before the screening started, Ms. Legg happened to mention to the technician that she was breastfeeding. The surprised tech immediately halted the procedure, Ms. Legg said. Because of increased breast density caused by nursing, Ms. Legg was told to wait at least 6 weeks after weaning for a mammogram.
“I didn’t even consider that breastfeeding might prevent me from getting a mammogram,” said Ms. Legg, a writing professor from Hamilton, Ohio. “I had to go home. I was frustrated, mostly because I had driven all that way. I had hyped myself up. I had childcare in line. And now I had to wait until my daughter weaned? At the time, I didn’t know if my daughter was going to breastfeed for 2 years or be done at 6 months.”
Considering her family background, Ms. Legg worried about not receiving the screening. Her sister had recently undergone a mammogram while she was breastfeeding without any problems.
When she did research, Ms. Legg found conflicting information about the subject online so she turned to Reddit, where she started a thread asking if other moms over 40 had experienced similar issues. Dozens of moms responded with questions and concerns on the subject. Some wrote about being denied a mammogram while breastfeeding, while others wrote they received the procedure without question. Guidance from health professionals on the topic appeared to vastly differ.
“That’s why I turned to [social media] because I wasn’t finding anything else,” Ms. Legg said. “There’s just a lack of clear information. As an older mom, there’s less information out there for being postpartum and being over 40.”
Confusion over screenings during breastfeeding comes at the intersection of national guidelines lowering the recommended age for first mammograms, more women having babies later in life, and women getting breast cancer earlier.
Most physician specialty associations agree that mammography is safe for breastfeeding patients and that they need not delay routine screenings. However, the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is not well advertised, said Molly Peterson, MD, a radiologist based in St. Frances, Wisconsin, and lead author of a 2023 article about breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation in RadioGraphics, a journal of the Radiological Society of North America.
Conflicting information from nonscientific resources adds to the confusion, Dr. Peterson said. At the same time, health providers along the care spectrum may be uncertain about what imaging is safe and reasonable. Recommendations about mammography and lactation can also vary by institution, screening experts say.
“I’ve talked with pregnant and breastfeeding patients, both younger and older, who were unsure if they could have mammograms,” Dr. Peterson said. “I’ve also fielded questions from technologists, unclear what imaging we can offer these patients. ... Educating health professionals about evidence-based guidelines for screening and diagnostic imaging and reassuring patients about the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is thus more important than ever.”
Differing Guidelines, Case-by-Case Considerations
The RadioGraphics paper emphasizes that both screening and diagnostic imaging can be safely performed using protocols based on age, breast cancer risk, and whether the patient is pregnant or lactating.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria also support mammography for certain patients during lactation. The guidelines state there is no contraindication to performing mammography during lactation, but note that challenges in evaluation can arise because of the unique physiological and structural breast changes that can occur.
“Hormones can change breast density and size of the breast, which could limit the clinical examination, mimic pathology, and obscure mammographic findings,” said Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the ACR Breast Imaging Commission. “It is important the patient pumps right before the mammogram or brings the baby to breastfeed prior to the imaging examination to offer the best imaging evaluation and reduce breast density as much as possible.”
In those patients who choose to prolong breastfeeding and are of the age to be screened, it is important they undergo yearly clinical breast exams, perform breast self-exams, and discuss breast cancer screening with their healthcare provider, she said. “They should not delay a routine screening mammogram. Most patients have dense breast tissue at this time, and frequently a breast ultrasound may be performed also.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not have specific guidelines about breastfeeding mothers and mammography recommendations. Breastfeeding patients should discuss with their physicians or midwives the pros and cons of mammography, taking into account personal risk factors and how long they plan to nurse, said Joshua Copel, MD, vice chair of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a member of ACOG’s Committee on Obstetric Practice.
“The question for anybody to address with their physician will be, ‘Is my risk of breast cancer high enough that I should take that small risk that they’re going to over- or underread the mammogram because of my nursing status? Or should I wait until I wean the baby and have the mammogram then?’” he said.
Institutional and practice protocols meanwhile, can depend on a patient’s cancer risk.
Guidelines at the University of Wisconsin, for instance, advise that lactating patients 40 or over who are at average risk, wait 6-8 weeks after cessation of breastfeeding, said Alison Gegios, MD, a radiologist and assistant professor in breast imaging at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Average risk is defined as less than a 15% lifetime risk of breast cancer, she said.
Dr. Gegios, a coauthor on the RadioGraphics paper, said her institution recommends screening mammography if lactating patients are at intermediate or high risk, and are over 30. In such cases however, screening is generally deferred until 3-6 months after delivery, she noted.
“If patients are high risk, it’s also important to do screening breast MRIs,” Dr. Gegios said. “Studies have shown that screening breast MRIs are effective in breastfeeding patients despite their increased background parenchymal enhancement because breast cancer still stands out on our maximum intensity projections and stands out on the exam from the background.”
How to Clear Up Confusion, Promote Consistency
After her experience at the mammography practice, Ms. Legg went home and immediately sent a message to her ob.gyn. about what happened.
The doctor was similarly surprised and frustrated that Ms. Legg wasn’t able to get the mammogram, she said. To get around the difference in protocols, Ms. Legg’s ob.gyn. referred her to a high-risk clinic in Cincinnati. Ms. Legg’s history qualified her as high risk and she received genetic testing and a breast ultrasound at the clinic, she said.
“The ultrasound showed some shady spots,” Ms. Legg recalled. “They weren’t quite sure what they were. Another ultrasound later, they determined the spots were symmetrical and it ended up not being anything [serious]. Genetic-wise, I did not have any markers for cancer.”
Ms. Legg was relieved and she eventually received a mammogram when she finished breastfeeding, she said. However, she feels the overlap of older, breastfeeding moms and mammography guidelines deserves more attention.
“I would encourage all of us in the ‘geriatric mother’s club,’ to advocate for yourself, do your research, and also turn to your medical professionals and ask questions,” she said. “Make sure you know what they recommend for moms who are older and just had a baby.”
On the provider side, Dr. Destounis said physicians should revisit with patients the most updated guidelines about breastfeeding and mammography at routine appointments.
“Patients and their physicians have to have communication about screening for breast cancer if they are of screening age,” she said.
Dr. Copel advises physicians to run through the risks and benefits of mammograms with older, breastfeeding patients and make a shared decision. “It’s all going to vary with the individual circumstances,” he said. “If someone [has] a BRCA gene and their sister and mother had breast cancer, maybe it’s worth it. If somebody has absolutely no family history and just crossed the threshold for meeting a mammogram [recommendation], then sure, wait.”
Ms. Legg would like to see more professional literature and educational material directed toward the older, breastfeeding population about mammograms.
“At minimum, work together across departments to create an intake form, a questionnaire that is inclusive of everything,” she said. “There should be a question before you even get to the tech that asks, ‘Are you breastfeeding?’ ”
When her obstetrician-gynecologist recommended a mammogram, Emily Legg didn’t hesitate to schedule an appointment for the screening.
Her grandmother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and her father died of prostate cancer in his mid-50s. Ms. Legg also has polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which increases the risk of some cancers.
Having just turned 40, Ms. Legg said she was determined to be as proactive as possible with cancer screenings.
Before the mammogram, she arranged for childcare for her 6-month-old daughter and filled out a required questionnaire online that asked about her history and health conditions. When the appointment day arrived, Ms. Legg made the 30-minute drive to the clinic where she was prepped for the procedure and escorted to the mammography room.
But just before the screening started, Ms. Legg happened to mention to the technician that she was breastfeeding. The surprised tech immediately halted the procedure, Ms. Legg said. Because of increased breast density caused by nursing, Ms. Legg was told to wait at least 6 weeks after weaning for a mammogram.
“I didn’t even consider that breastfeeding might prevent me from getting a mammogram,” said Ms. Legg, a writing professor from Hamilton, Ohio. “I had to go home. I was frustrated, mostly because I had driven all that way. I had hyped myself up. I had childcare in line. And now I had to wait until my daughter weaned? At the time, I didn’t know if my daughter was going to breastfeed for 2 years or be done at 6 months.”
Considering her family background, Ms. Legg worried about not receiving the screening. Her sister had recently undergone a mammogram while she was breastfeeding without any problems.
When she did research, Ms. Legg found conflicting information about the subject online so she turned to Reddit, where she started a thread asking if other moms over 40 had experienced similar issues. Dozens of moms responded with questions and concerns on the subject. Some wrote about being denied a mammogram while breastfeeding, while others wrote they received the procedure without question. Guidance from health professionals on the topic appeared to vastly differ.
“That’s why I turned to [social media] because I wasn’t finding anything else,” Ms. Legg said. “There’s just a lack of clear information. As an older mom, there’s less information out there for being postpartum and being over 40.”
Confusion over screenings during breastfeeding comes at the intersection of national guidelines lowering the recommended age for first mammograms, more women having babies later in life, and women getting breast cancer earlier.
Most physician specialty associations agree that mammography is safe for breastfeeding patients and that they need not delay routine screenings. However, the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is not well advertised, said Molly Peterson, MD, a radiologist based in St. Frances, Wisconsin, and lead author of a 2023 article about breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation in RadioGraphics, a journal of the Radiological Society of North America.
Conflicting information from nonscientific resources adds to the confusion, Dr. Peterson said. At the same time, health providers along the care spectrum may be uncertain about what imaging is safe and reasonable. Recommendations about mammography and lactation can also vary by institution, screening experts say.
“I’ve talked with pregnant and breastfeeding patients, both younger and older, who were unsure if they could have mammograms,” Dr. Peterson said. “I’ve also fielded questions from technologists, unclear what imaging we can offer these patients. ... Educating health professionals about evidence-based guidelines for screening and diagnostic imaging and reassuring patients about the safety of breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is thus more important than ever.”
Differing Guidelines, Case-by-Case Considerations
The RadioGraphics paper emphasizes that both screening and diagnostic imaging can be safely performed using protocols based on age, breast cancer risk, and whether the patient is pregnant or lactating.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria also support mammography for certain patients during lactation. The guidelines state there is no contraindication to performing mammography during lactation, but note that challenges in evaluation can arise because of the unique physiological and structural breast changes that can occur.
“Hormones can change breast density and size of the breast, which could limit the clinical examination, mimic pathology, and obscure mammographic findings,” said Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the ACR Breast Imaging Commission. “It is important the patient pumps right before the mammogram or brings the baby to breastfeed prior to the imaging examination to offer the best imaging evaluation and reduce breast density as much as possible.”
In those patients who choose to prolong breastfeeding and are of the age to be screened, it is important they undergo yearly clinical breast exams, perform breast self-exams, and discuss breast cancer screening with their healthcare provider, she said. “They should not delay a routine screening mammogram. Most patients have dense breast tissue at this time, and frequently a breast ultrasound may be performed also.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not have specific guidelines about breastfeeding mothers and mammography recommendations. Breastfeeding patients should discuss with their physicians or midwives the pros and cons of mammography, taking into account personal risk factors and how long they plan to nurse, said Joshua Copel, MD, vice chair of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a member of ACOG’s Committee on Obstetric Practice.
“The question for anybody to address with their physician will be, ‘Is my risk of breast cancer high enough that I should take that small risk that they’re going to over- or underread the mammogram because of my nursing status? Or should I wait until I wean the baby and have the mammogram then?’” he said.
Institutional and practice protocols meanwhile, can depend on a patient’s cancer risk.
Guidelines at the University of Wisconsin, for instance, advise that lactating patients 40 or over who are at average risk, wait 6-8 weeks after cessation of breastfeeding, said Alison Gegios, MD, a radiologist and assistant professor in breast imaging at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Average risk is defined as less than a 15% lifetime risk of breast cancer, she said.
Dr. Gegios, a coauthor on the RadioGraphics paper, said her institution recommends screening mammography if lactating patients are at intermediate or high risk, and are over 30. In such cases however, screening is generally deferred until 3-6 months after delivery, she noted.
“If patients are high risk, it’s also important to do screening breast MRIs,” Dr. Gegios said. “Studies have shown that screening breast MRIs are effective in breastfeeding patients despite their increased background parenchymal enhancement because breast cancer still stands out on our maximum intensity projections and stands out on the exam from the background.”
How to Clear Up Confusion, Promote Consistency
After her experience at the mammography practice, Ms. Legg went home and immediately sent a message to her ob.gyn. about what happened.
The doctor was similarly surprised and frustrated that Ms. Legg wasn’t able to get the mammogram, she said. To get around the difference in protocols, Ms. Legg’s ob.gyn. referred her to a high-risk clinic in Cincinnati. Ms. Legg’s history qualified her as high risk and she received genetic testing and a breast ultrasound at the clinic, she said.
“The ultrasound showed some shady spots,” Ms. Legg recalled. “They weren’t quite sure what they were. Another ultrasound later, they determined the spots were symmetrical and it ended up not being anything [serious]. Genetic-wise, I did not have any markers for cancer.”
Ms. Legg was relieved and she eventually received a mammogram when she finished breastfeeding, she said. However, she feels the overlap of older, breastfeeding moms and mammography guidelines deserves more attention.
“I would encourage all of us in the ‘geriatric mother’s club,’ to advocate for yourself, do your research, and also turn to your medical professionals and ask questions,” she said. “Make sure you know what they recommend for moms who are older and just had a baby.”
On the provider side, Dr. Destounis said physicians should revisit with patients the most updated guidelines about breastfeeding and mammography at routine appointments.
“Patients and their physicians have to have communication about screening for breast cancer if they are of screening age,” she said.
Dr. Copel advises physicians to run through the risks and benefits of mammograms with older, breastfeeding patients and make a shared decision. “It’s all going to vary with the individual circumstances,” he said. “If someone [has] a BRCA gene and their sister and mother had breast cancer, maybe it’s worth it. If somebody has absolutely no family history and just crossed the threshold for meeting a mammogram [recommendation], then sure, wait.”
Ms. Legg would like to see more professional literature and educational material directed toward the older, breastfeeding population about mammograms.
“At minimum, work together across departments to create an intake form, a questionnaire that is inclusive of everything,” she said. “There should be a question before you even get to the tech that asks, ‘Are you breastfeeding?’ ”
Dogs Able to Sniff Out PTSD, Other Trauma, in Human Breath
Dogs can detect stress-related compounds in the breath of people experiencing early signs of trauma, including those with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a new proof-of-concept study suggested.
The research provides evidence that some service dogs with PTSD can be trained to detect episodes of pending distress through a person’s breath and perhaps prompt the individual to use coping skills to manage the episode.
“Ours is the first study to demonstrate that at least some dogs can detect putative stress-related volatile organic compounds in human breath that are associated with PTSD symptoms,” study author Laura Kiiroja, PhD candidate, department of psychology and neuroscience, faculty of science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, told this news organization.
The study was published online on March 28, 2024, in Frontiers of Allergy.
Heightened Sense of Smell
The lifetime prevalence of PTSD is about 8% in the general population, but data show it can reach 23% in veterans. In addition, many more trauma-exposed individuals experience subthreshold symptoms.
Research is investigating the application of dogs’ sense of smell — which is up to 100,000 times more sensitive than humans’ — to detect cancers, viruses, parasites, hypoglycemia, and seizures in humans.
The new study included 26 mostly civilian “donors” (mean age, 31 years; 18 females) who had experienced various types of trauma but had no severe mental illness. More than 50% met the criteria for PTSD.
Participants were recruited from a study examining neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the potential links between trauma and cannabis use. However, participants in the dog study abstained from using cannabis for at least 12 hours prior to the study experiments.
Breath Donors
Breath samples were collected via disposable medical-grade face masks at baseline and during ensuing experiments. In total, 40 breath sample sets were collected.
Two female companion dogs — Ivy, a red golden retriever, and Callie, a German shepherd/Belgian Malinois mix — were trained to identify target odors from the samples.
The animals were tested to determine whether they were able to discriminate between breath samples collected from these same “breath donors” during a relatively relaxed state and during induced stress testing which is known as the alternative forced choice discrimination test.
The dogs’ ability to discern trauma cues from breath samples of various individuals was tested by presenting one sample (baseline or trauma cue) at a time. The researchers used signal detection theory to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of dogs in detecting human stress VOCs.
Investigators found the dogs had about a 90% accuracy rate across all sample sets in the discrimination experiment and 74% and 81% accuracy for Ivy and Callie, respectively, in the detection experiment.
“Our study contributed to the evidence showing that not only are dogs able to detect some physical health conditions in humans but also that some mental health conditions alter the released VOCs in a way that is detectable by dogs,” Ms. Kiiroja said.
Emotion Detectors
At baseline and during each cue exposure, donors reported their affect using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Ivy’s performance correlated with the donors’ self-reported anxiety, and Callie’s performance correlated with the donors’ self-reported shame.
Based on these correlations, the researchers speculate Ivy detected VOCs that likely originated from the sympathetic-adrenomedullary axis, which involves adrenaline and noradrenaline.
VOCs detected by Callie likely originated in the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis, which involves cortisol and corticosterone. These two endocrine subsystems play a major role in reestablishing homeostasis in response to a stressor.
The results suggest some service dogs could alert to upcoming intrusion and hyperarousal symptoms even before physical signs manifest and before the person is even aware of the situation, said Ms. Kiiroja.
“This would enable earlier distraction and reminders to use skills learned in psychotherapy; this would have a better likelihood of increasing the efficacy of these skills and preventing further escalation of the arousal,” she said.
Most breath samples likely included both early and late stress VOCs, as the breath donors wore the trauma mask for a relatively long time, the authors noted. Future studies should test dogs’ olfactory acuity on samples collected minutes after the trauma cue, they added.
Another limitation is that all donors were regular cannabis users, so the results may not generalize to others. However, the fact the dogs demonstrated their detection ability even with cannabis users makes the proof-of-concept “more stringent,” Ms. Kiiroja said.
The goal of the study was to see if some dogs are capable of detecting stress VOCs from people with trauma histories in response to trauma cues, so the small number of dogs in the study isn’t a limitation, the authors noted.
‘Wonderful Work’
Commenting on the findings, Elspeth Ritchie, MD, chair of psychiatry, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, described the research as “wonderful work.” Dr. Ritchie, who was not a part of this study, has also studied PTSD supports dogs.
The study is yet another illustration of the “amazing things dogs can do ... not just for veterans but for people with mental illness.” They can be a source of comfort and help people manage their anxiety.
Training PTSD service dogs can be expensive, with some well-accredited organizations charging about $50,000 for an animal, Dr. Ritchie said. Training a dog to detect VOCs could also be costly, she added.
Although such research has increased in recent years, it’s unclear how it would be applied in practice. Identifying funding for this sort of study and designing trials would also be challenging, Dr. Ritchie added.
“The idea is good, but when you try to operationalize it, it gets tricky,” she said.
The fact that all donors in the study used cannabis is a confounding factor and raises the question of what else might confound the results, Dr. Ritchie added.
Dr. Ritchie emphasized that although ideally veterans would learn to recognize the onset of stress symptoms themselves, a dog could serve as a valuable companion in this process. “That’s precisely why this research should progress,” she said.
The authors and Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Dogs can detect stress-related compounds in the breath of people experiencing early signs of trauma, including those with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a new proof-of-concept study suggested.
The research provides evidence that some service dogs with PTSD can be trained to detect episodes of pending distress through a person’s breath and perhaps prompt the individual to use coping skills to manage the episode.
“Ours is the first study to demonstrate that at least some dogs can detect putative stress-related volatile organic compounds in human breath that are associated with PTSD symptoms,” study author Laura Kiiroja, PhD candidate, department of psychology and neuroscience, faculty of science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, told this news organization.
The study was published online on March 28, 2024, in Frontiers of Allergy.
Heightened Sense of Smell
The lifetime prevalence of PTSD is about 8% in the general population, but data show it can reach 23% in veterans. In addition, many more trauma-exposed individuals experience subthreshold symptoms.
Research is investigating the application of dogs’ sense of smell — which is up to 100,000 times more sensitive than humans’ — to detect cancers, viruses, parasites, hypoglycemia, and seizures in humans.
The new study included 26 mostly civilian “donors” (mean age, 31 years; 18 females) who had experienced various types of trauma but had no severe mental illness. More than 50% met the criteria for PTSD.
Participants were recruited from a study examining neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the potential links between trauma and cannabis use. However, participants in the dog study abstained from using cannabis for at least 12 hours prior to the study experiments.
Breath Donors
Breath samples were collected via disposable medical-grade face masks at baseline and during ensuing experiments. In total, 40 breath sample sets were collected.
Two female companion dogs — Ivy, a red golden retriever, and Callie, a German shepherd/Belgian Malinois mix — were trained to identify target odors from the samples.
The animals were tested to determine whether they were able to discriminate between breath samples collected from these same “breath donors” during a relatively relaxed state and during induced stress testing which is known as the alternative forced choice discrimination test.
The dogs’ ability to discern trauma cues from breath samples of various individuals was tested by presenting one sample (baseline or trauma cue) at a time. The researchers used signal detection theory to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of dogs in detecting human stress VOCs.
Investigators found the dogs had about a 90% accuracy rate across all sample sets in the discrimination experiment and 74% and 81% accuracy for Ivy and Callie, respectively, in the detection experiment.
“Our study contributed to the evidence showing that not only are dogs able to detect some physical health conditions in humans but also that some mental health conditions alter the released VOCs in a way that is detectable by dogs,” Ms. Kiiroja said.
Emotion Detectors
At baseline and during each cue exposure, donors reported their affect using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Ivy’s performance correlated with the donors’ self-reported anxiety, and Callie’s performance correlated with the donors’ self-reported shame.
Based on these correlations, the researchers speculate Ivy detected VOCs that likely originated from the sympathetic-adrenomedullary axis, which involves adrenaline and noradrenaline.
VOCs detected by Callie likely originated in the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis, which involves cortisol and corticosterone. These two endocrine subsystems play a major role in reestablishing homeostasis in response to a stressor.
The results suggest some service dogs could alert to upcoming intrusion and hyperarousal symptoms even before physical signs manifest and before the person is even aware of the situation, said Ms. Kiiroja.
“This would enable earlier distraction and reminders to use skills learned in psychotherapy; this would have a better likelihood of increasing the efficacy of these skills and preventing further escalation of the arousal,” she said.
Most breath samples likely included both early and late stress VOCs, as the breath donors wore the trauma mask for a relatively long time, the authors noted. Future studies should test dogs’ olfactory acuity on samples collected minutes after the trauma cue, they added.
Another limitation is that all donors were regular cannabis users, so the results may not generalize to others. However, the fact the dogs demonstrated their detection ability even with cannabis users makes the proof-of-concept “more stringent,” Ms. Kiiroja said.
The goal of the study was to see if some dogs are capable of detecting stress VOCs from people with trauma histories in response to trauma cues, so the small number of dogs in the study isn’t a limitation, the authors noted.
‘Wonderful Work’
Commenting on the findings, Elspeth Ritchie, MD, chair of psychiatry, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, described the research as “wonderful work.” Dr. Ritchie, who was not a part of this study, has also studied PTSD supports dogs.
The study is yet another illustration of the “amazing things dogs can do ... not just for veterans but for people with mental illness.” They can be a source of comfort and help people manage their anxiety.
Training PTSD service dogs can be expensive, with some well-accredited organizations charging about $50,000 for an animal, Dr. Ritchie said. Training a dog to detect VOCs could also be costly, she added.
Although such research has increased in recent years, it’s unclear how it would be applied in practice. Identifying funding for this sort of study and designing trials would also be challenging, Dr. Ritchie added.
“The idea is good, but when you try to operationalize it, it gets tricky,” she said.
The fact that all donors in the study used cannabis is a confounding factor and raises the question of what else might confound the results, Dr. Ritchie added.
Dr. Ritchie emphasized that although ideally veterans would learn to recognize the onset of stress symptoms themselves, a dog could serve as a valuable companion in this process. “That’s precisely why this research should progress,” she said.
The authors and Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Dogs can detect stress-related compounds in the breath of people experiencing early signs of trauma, including those with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a new proof-of-concept study suggested.
The research provides evidence that some service dogs with PTSD can be trained to detect episodes of pending distress through a person’s breath and perhaps prompt the individual to use coping skills to manage the episode.
“Ours is the first study to demonstrate that at least some dogs can detect putative stress-related volatile organic compounds in human breath that are associated with PTSD symptoms,” study author Laura Kiiroja, PhD candidate, department of psychology and neuroscience, faculty of science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, told this news organization.
The study was published online on March 28, 2024, in Frontiers of Allergy.
Heightened Sense of Smell
The lifetime prevalence of PTSD is about 8% in the general population, but data show it can reach 23% in veterans. In addition, many more trauma-exposed individuals experience subthreshold symptoms.
Research is investigating the application of dogs’ sense of smell — which is up to 100,000 times more sensitive than humans’ — to detect cancers, viruses, parasites, hypoglycemia, and seizures in humans.
The new study included 26 mostly civilian “donors” (mean age, 31 years; 18 females) who had experienced various types of trauma but had no severe mental illness. More than 50% met the criteria for PTSD.
Participants were recruited from a study examining neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the potential links between trauma and cannabis use. However, participants in the dog study abstained from using cannabis for at least 12 hours prior to the study experiments.
Breath Donors
Breath samples were collected via disposable medical-grade face masks at baseline and during ensuing experiments. In total, 40 breath sample sets were collected.
Two female companion dogs — Ivy, a red golden retriever, and Callie, a German shepherd/Belgian Malinois mix — were trained to identify target odors from the samples.
The animals were tested to determine whether they were able to discriminate between breath samples collected from these same “breath donors” during a relatively relaxed state and during induced stress testing which is known as the alternative forced choice discrimination test.
The dogs’ ability to discern trauma cues from breath samples of various individuals was tested by presenting one sample (baseline or trauma cue) at a time. The researchers used signal detection theory to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of dogs in detecting human stress VOCs.
Investigators found the dogs had about a 90% accuracy rate across all sample sets in the discrimination experiment and 74% and 81% accuracy for Ivy and Callie, respectively, in the detection experiment.
“Our study contributed to the evidence showing that not only are dogs able to detect some physical health conditions in humans but also that some mental health conditions alter the released VOCs in a way that is detectable by dogs,” Ms. Kiiroja said.
Emotion Detectors
At baseline and during each cue exposure, donors reported their affect using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Ivy’s performance correlated with the donors’ self-reported anxiety, and Callie’s performance correlated with the donors’ self-reported shame.
Based on these correlations, the researchers speculate Ivy detected VOCs that likely originated from the sympathetic-adrenomedullary axis, which involves adrenaline and noradrenaline.
VOCs detected by Callie likely originated in the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis, which involves cortisol and corticosterone. These two endocrine subsystems play a major role in reestablishing homeostasis in response to a stressor.
The results suggest some service dogs could alert to upcoming intrusion and hyperarousal symptoms even before physical signs manifest and before the person is even aware of the situation, said Ms. Kiiroja.
“This would enable earlier distraction and reminders to use skills learned in psychotherapy; this would have a better likelihood of increasing the efficacy of these skills and preventing further escalation of the arousal,” she said.
Most breath samples likely included both early and late stress VOCs, as the breath donors wore the trauma mask for a relatively long time, the authors noted. Future studies should test dogs’ olfactory acuity on samples collected minutes after the trauma cue, they added.
Another limitation is that all donors were regular cannabis users, so the results may not generalize to others. However, the fact the dogs demonstrated their detection ability even with cannabis users makes the proof-of-concept “more stringent,” Ms. Kiiroja said.
The goal of the study was to see if some dogs are capable of detecting stress VOCs from people with trauma histories in response to trauma cues, so the small number of dogs in the study isn’t a limitation, the authors noted.
‘Wonderful Work’
Commenting on the findings, Elspeth Ritchie, MD, chair of psychiatry, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, described the research as “wonderful work.” Dr. Ritchie, who was not a part of this study, has also studied PTSD supports dogs.
The study is yet another illustration of the “amazing things dogs can do ... not just for veterans but for people with mental illness.” They can be a source of comfort and help people manage their anxiety.
Training PTSD service dogs can be expensive, with some well-accredited organizations charging about $50,000 for an animal, Dr. Ritchie said. Training a dog to detect VOCs could also be costly, she added.
Although such research has increased in recent years, it’s unclear how it would be applied in practice. Identifying funding for this sort of study and designing trials would also be challenging, Dr. Ritchie added.
“The idea is good, but when you try to operationalize it, it gets tricky,” she said.
The fact that all donors in the study used cannabis is a confounding factor and raises the question of what else might confound the results, Dr. Ritchie added.
Dr. Ritchie emphasized that although ideally veterans would learn to recognize the onset of stress symptoms themselves, a dog could serve as a valuable companion in this process. “That’s precisely why this research should progress,” she said.
The authors and Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.