The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 8 approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

These “milestone treatments” mark the first cell-based gene therapies for this debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States.

The two therapies are exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel (Casgevy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics), and lovotibeglogene autotemcel, or lovo-cel (Lyfgenia; bluebird bio). 

“The approval of the first gene therapies for [sickle cell disease] represents a tremendous step forward for the [sickle cell] community, which has been historically overlooked and underfunded,” said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a statement from the American Society of Hematology, following the approval.

“We are excited to advance the field, especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease, by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Nicole Verdun, MD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, added in an agency press release.

Sickle cell disease involves a mutation in hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that provides oxygen to tissues. The mutation leads red blood cells to develop a crescent or sickle shape, which can restrict blood flow and cause severe pain and organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive events or crises. 

Treatment options prior to these approvals primarily included red blood transfusions and hydroxyurea alongside pain management. The only potential curative option has been allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but that comes with significant risks and most patients don’t have an appropriate donor.

Exa-cel

Exa-cel uses CRISPR gene-editing technology. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning, which removes cells from the bone marrow. These cells are genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. Patients then receive an infusion of the edited cells, which can help restore normal hemoglobin production. 

The FDA approval was based on data from the pivotal CLIMB SCD-121 trial. In an October advisory committee meeting, the FDA highlighted trial data demonstrating that 29 of 31 patients reached the trial’s primary endpoint: freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crises over a 12-month period. In addition, 28 of these patients remained free of vaso-occlusive crises for almost 2 years.

The committee noted that one of the 31 patients died about 9 months after receiving an exa-cel infusion. 

The cell-based gene therapy also increased both fetal and total hemoglobin, with total hemoglobin levels increasing to > 11 g/dL by month 3 and remaining at that level afterward. No patients experienced graft failure or rejection.

The most common side effects included low platelets and white blood cell counts, mouth sores, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and febrile neutropenia. 

Exa-cel could “provide a one-time functional cure” for patients with severe sickle cell disease, according to Franco Locatelli, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, who presented initial findings last year.

While the current approval is for patients with infusion-dependent sickle cell disease, exa-cel is also being evaluated in patients with another blood disorder, beta-thalassemia.

Lovo-cel

Lovo-cel, a cell-based gene therapy, uses a different technology — a lentiviral vector, or gene delivery vehicle — that can also genetically modify a patient’s blood stem cells. 

Like exa-cel, lovo-cel is a one-time, single-dose infusion that contains the patient’s modified cells. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning. The patient’s stem cells are then genetically modified to allow them to produce the most common form of hemoglobin, HbA 

This approval was based on data from a single-arm, 24-month study in patients aged 12-50 years who had sickle cell disease and a history of vaso-occlusive events. 

Overall, 88% of patients (28 of 32) achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6-18 months after the infusion. 

The most common side effects included stomatitis; febrile neutropenia; and low platelet, white blood cell, and red blood cell counts.

The FDA noted that hematologic cancer has occurred in patients treated with lovo-cel, and the label includes a black-box warning about the risk. 

Dr. Brodsky noted, however, that “while these new gene therapies are potentially life-changing for individuals living with [sickle cell disease], they must be accessible to be effective.”

Access is a potential concern. Exa-cel and lovo-cel could cost about $2 million.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 8 approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

These “milestone treatments” mark the first cell-based gene therapies for this debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States.

The two therapies are exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel (Casgevy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics), and lovotibeglogene autotemcel, or lovo-cel (Lyfgenia; bluebird bio). 

“The approval of the first gene therapies for [sickle cell disease] represents a tremendous step forward for the [sickle cell] community, which has been historically overlooked and underfunded,” said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a statement from the American Society of Hematology, following the approval.

“We are excited to advance the field, especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease, by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Nicole Verdun, MD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, added in an agency press release.

Sickle cell disease involves a mutation in hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that provides oxygen to tissues. The mutation leads red blood cells to develop a crescent or sickle shape, which can restrict blood flow and cause severe pain and organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive events or crises. 

Treatment options prior to these approvals primarily included red blood transfusions and hydroxyurea alongside pain management. The only potential curative option has been allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but that comes with significant risks and most patients don’t have an appropriate donor.

Exa-cel

Exa-cel uses CRISPR gene-editing technology. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning, which removes cells from the bone marrow. These cells are genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. Patients then receive an infusion of the edited cells, which can help restore normal hemoglobin production. 

The FDA approval was based on data from the pivotal CLIMB SCD-121 trial. In an October advisory committee meeting, the FDA highlighted trial data demonstrating that 29 of 31 patients reached the trial’s primary endpoint: freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crises over a 12-month period. In addition, 28 of these patients remained free of vaso-occlusive crises for almost 2 years.

The committee noted that one of the 31 patients died about 9 months after receiving an exa-cel infusion. 

The cell-based gene therapy also increased both fetal and total hemoglobin, with total hemoglobin levels increasing to > 11 g/dL by month 3 and remaining at that level afterward. No patients experienced graft failure or rejection.

The most common side effects included low platelets and white blood cell counts, mouth sores, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and febrile neutropenia. 

Exa-cel could “provide a one-time functional cure” for patients with severe sickle cell disease, according to Franco Locatelli, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, who presented initial findings last year.

While the current approval is for patients with infusion-dependent sickle cell disease, exa-cel is also being evaluated in patients with another blood disorder, beta-thalassemia.

Lovo-cel

Lovo-cel, a cell-based gene therapy, uses a different technology — a lentiviral vector, or gene delivery vehicle — that can also genetically modify a patient’s blood stem cells. 

Like exa-cel, lovo-cel is a one-time, single-dose infusion that contains the patient’s modified cells. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning. The patient’s stem cells are then genetically modified to allow them to produce the most common form of hemoglobin, HbA 

This approval was based on data from a single-arm, 24-month study in patients aged 12-50 years who had sickle cell disease and a history of vaso-occlusive events. 

Overall, 88% of patients (28 of 32) achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6-18 months after the infusion. 

The most common side effects included stomatitis; febrile neutropenia; and low platelet, white blood cell, and red blood cell counts.

The FDA noted that hematologic cancer has occurred in patients treated with lovo-cel, and the label includes a black-box warning about the risk. 

Dr. Brodsky noted, however, that “while these new gene therapies are potentially life-changing for individuals living with [sickle cell disease], they must be accessible to be effective.”

Access is a potential concern. Exa-cel and lovo-cel could cost about $2 million.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 8 approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

These “milestone treatments” mark the first cell-based gene therapies for this debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States.

The two therapies are exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel (Casgevy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics), and lovotibeglogene autotemcel, or lovo-cel (Lyfgenia; bluebird bio). 

“The approval of the first gene therapies for [sickle cell disease] represents a tremendous step forward for the [sickle cell] community, which has been historically overlooked and underfunded,” said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a statement from the American Society of Hematology, following the approval.

“We are excited to advance the field, especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease, by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Nicole Verdun, MD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, added in an agency press release.

Sickle cell disease involves a mutation in hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that provides oxygen to tissues. The mutation leads red blood cells to develop a crescent or sickle shape, which can restrict blood flow and cause severe pain and organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive events or crises. 

Treatment options prior to these approvals primarily included red blood transfusions and hydroxyurea alongside pain management. The only potential curative option has been allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but that comes with significant risks and most patients don’t have an appropriate donor.

Exa-cel

Exa-cel uses CRISPR gene-editing technology. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning, which removes cells from the bone marrow. These cells are genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. Patients then receive an infusion of the edited cells, which can help restore normal hemoglobin production. 

The FDA approval was based on data from the pivotal CLIMB SCD-121 trial. In an October advisory committee meeting, the FDA highlighted trial data demonstrating that 29 of 31 patients reached the trial’s primary endpoint: freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crises over a 12-month period. In addition, 28 of these patients remained free of vaso-occlusive crises for almost 2 years.

The committee noted that one of the 31 patients died about 9 months after receiving an exa-cel infusion. 

The cell-based gene therapy also increased both fetal and total hemoglobin, with total hemoglobin levels increasing to > 11 g/dL by month 3 and remaining at that level afterward. No patients experienced graft failure or rejection.

The most common side effects included low platelets and white blood cell counts, mouth sores, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and febrile neutropenia. 

Exa-cel could “provide a one-time functional cure” for patients with severe sickle cell disease, according to Franco Locatelli, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, who presented initial findings last year.

While the current approval is for patients with infusion-dependent sickle cell disease, exa-cel is also being evaluated in patients with another blood disorder, beta-thalassemia.

Lovo-cel

Lovo-cel, a cell-based gene therapy, uses a different technology — a lentiviral vector, or gene delivery vehicle — that can also genetically modify a patient’s blood stem cells. 

Like exa-cel, lovo-cel is a one-time, single-dose infusion that contains the patient’s modified cells. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning. The patient’s stem cells are then genetically modified to allow them to produce the most common form of hemoglobin, HbA 

This approval was based on data from a single-arm, 24-month study in patients aged 12-50 years who had sickle cell disease and a history of vaso-occlusive events. 

Overall, 88% of patients (28 of 32) achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6-18 months after the infusion. 

The most common side effects included stomatitis; febrile neutropenia; and low platelet, white blood cell, and red blood cell counts.

The FDA noted that hematologic cancer has occurred in patients treated with lovo-cel, and the label includes a black-box warning about the risk. 

Dr. Brodsky noted, however, that “while these new gene therapies are potentially life-changing for individuals living with [sickle cell disease], they must be accessible to be effective.”

Access is a potential concern. Exa-cel and lovo-cel could cost about $2 million.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Given her symptomatology, imaging, and laboratory study results, this patient is diagnosed with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and brain metastases. The pulmonologist shares the findings with the patient, and over the next several days, a multidisciplinary team, which includes oncology and radiology, forms to guide the patient through staging and treatment options. 

SCLC is a neuroendocrine carcinoma, which is an aggressive form of lung cancer associated with rapid growth and early spread to distant sites and frequent association with distinct paraneoplastic syndromes. Approximately 13% of newly diagnosed lung cancers are SCLC. Clinical presentation is often advanced stage and includes shortness of breath, cough, bone pain, weight loss, fatigue, and neurologic dysfunction, including blurred vision, dizziness, and headaches that disturb sleep. Typically, symptom onset is quick, with the duration of symptoms lasting between 8 and 12 weeks before presentation. 
 
According to CHEST guidelines, when clinical and radiographic findings suggest SCLC, diagnosis should be confirmed using the least invasive technique possible on the basis of presentation. Fine-needle aspiration or biopsy is recommended to assess a suspicious singular extrathoracic site for metastasis. If that approach is not feasible, guidelines recommend diagnosing the primary lung lesion. If there is an accessible pleural effusion, ultrasound-guided thoracentesis is recommended for diagnosis. If the result of pleural fluid cytology is negative, pleural biopsy using image-guided pleural biopsy, medical, or surgical thoracoscopy is recommended next. Common mutations associated with SCLC include RB1 and TP53 gene mutations.

Nearly all patients with SCLC (98%) have a history of tobacco use. Uranium or radon exposure has also been linked to SCLC. Pathogenesis occurs in the peribronchial region of the respiratory system and moves into the bronchial submucosa. Widespread metastases can appear early during SCLC and generally affect mediastinal lymph nodes, bones, brain, liver, and adrenal glands.

Patient education should include information about clinical trials, available treatment options, and associated adverse events. Smoking cessation is encouraged for current smokers with SCLC. 

For patients with extensive-stage metastatic SCLC, the new standard of care combines the immunotherapy atezolizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti–programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, with chemotherapy (cisplatin-etoposide). When used in the first-line setting, this combination has been shown to improve survival outcomes. Of course, clinical trials are ongoing; other treatments in development include additional classes of immunotherapies (programmed cell death protein1 [PD-1] inhibitor antibody, anti-PD1 antibody, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor antibody) and targeted therapies (delta-like protein 3 antibody-drug conjugate). 
 

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Given her symptomatology, imaging, and laboratory study results, this patient is diagnosed with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and brain metastases. The pulmonologist shares the findings with the patient, and over the next several days, a multidisciplinary team, which includes oncology and radiology, forms to guide the patient through staging and treatment options. 

SCLC is a neuroendocrine carcinoma, which is an aggressive form of lung cancer associated with rapid growth and early spread to distant sites and frequent association with distinct paraneoplastic syndromes. Approximately 13% of newly diagnosed lung cancers are SCLC. Clinical presentation is often advanced stage and includes shortness of breath, cough, bone pain, weight loss, fatigue, and neurologic dysfunction, including blurred vision, dizziness, and headaches that disturb sleep. Typically, symptom onset is quick, with the duration of symptoms lasting between 8 and 12 weeks before presentation. 
 
According to CHEST guidelines, when clinical and radiographic findings suggest SCLC, diagnosis should be confirmed using the least invasive technique possible on the basis of presentation. Fine-needle aspiration or biopsy is recommended to assess a suspicious singular extrathoracic site for metastasis. If that approach is not feasible, guidelines recommend diagnosing the primary lung lesion. If there is an accessible pleural effusion, ultrasound-guided thoracentesis is recommended for diagnosis. If the result of pleural fluid cytology is negative, pleural biopsy using image-guided pleural biopsy, medical, or surgical thoracoscopy is recommended next. Common mutations associated with SCLC include RB1 and TP53 gene mutations.

Nearly all patients with SCLC (98%) have a history of tobacco use. Uranium or radon exposure has also been linked to SCLC. Pathogenesis occurs in the peribronchial region of the respiratory system and moves into the bronchial submucosa. Widespread metastases can appear early during SCLC and generally affect mediastinal lymph nodes, bones, brain, liver, and adrenal glands.

Patient education should include information about clinical trials, available treatment options, and associated adverse events. Smoking cessation is encouraged for current smokers with SCLC. 

For patients with extensive-stage metastatic SCLC, the new standard of care combines the immunotherapy atezolizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti–programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, with chemotherapy (cisplatin-etoposide). When used in the first-line setting, this combination has been shown to improve survival outcomes. Of course, clinical trials are ongoing; other treatments in development include additional classes of immunotherapies (programmed cell death protein1 [PD-1] inhibitor antibody, anti-PD1 antibody, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor antibody) and targeted therapies (delta-like protein 3 antibody-drug conjugate). 
 

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Given her symptomatology, imaging, and laboratory study results, this patient is diagnosed with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and brain metastases. The pulmonologist shares the findings with the patient, and over the next several days, a multidisciplinary team, which includes oncology and radiology, forms to guide the patient through staging and treatment options. 

SCLC is a neuroendocrine carcinoma, which is an aggressive form of lung cancer associated with rapid growth and early spread to distant sites and frequent association with distinct paraneoplastic syndromes. Approximately 13% of newly diagnosed lung cancers are SCLC. Clinical presentation is often advanced stage and includes shortness of breath, cough, bone pain, weight loss, fatigue, and neurologic dysfunction, including blurred vision, dizziness, and headaches that disturb sleep. Typically, symptom onset is quick, with the duration of symptoms lasting between 8 and 12 weeks before presentation. 
 
According to CHEST guidelines, when clinical and radiographic findings suggest SCLC, diagnosis should be confirmed using the least invasive technique possible on the basis of presentation. Fine-needle aspiration or biopsy is recommended to assess a suspicious singular extrathoracic site for metastasis. If that approach is not feasible, guidelines recommend diagnosing the primary lung lesion. If there is an accessible pleural effusion, ultrasound-guided thoracentesis is recommended for diagnosis. If the result of pleural fluid cytology is negative, pleural biopsy using image-guided pleural biopsy, medical, or surgical thoracoscopy is recommended next. Common mutations associated with SCLC include RB1 and TP53 gene mutations.

Nearly all patients with SCLC (98%) have a history of tobacco use. Uranium or radon exposure has also been linked to SCLC. Pathogenesis occurs in the peribronchial region of the respiratory system and moves into the bronchial submucosa. Widespread metastases can appear early during SCLC and generally affect mediastinal lymph nodes, bones, brain, liver, and adrenal glands.

Patient education should include information about clinical trials, available treatment options, and associated adverse events. Smoking cessation is encouraged for current smokers with SCLC. 

For patients with extensive-stage metastatic SCLC, the new standard of care combines the immunotherapy atezolizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti–programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, with chemotherapy (cisplatin-etoposide). When used in the first-line setting, this combination has been shown to improve survival outcomes. Of course, clinical trials are ongoing; other treatments in development include additional classes of immunotherapies (programmed cell death protein1 [PD-1] inhibitor antibody, anti-PD1 antibody, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor antibody) and targeted therapies (delta-like protein 3 antibody-drug conjugate). 
 

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

SAN ANTONIO — In endocrine-resistant, HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan (dato-DXd, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca) has greater efficacy and a better safety profile than investigator-chosen chemotherapy, according to the latest results from the TROPION-Breast01 clinical trial.

If approved, the ADC would join sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead) as agents that target trophoblast cell-surface antigen-2 (Trop-2), which is universally expressed in breast cancer, according to Aditya Bardia, MD, who presented the new results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Dato-DXd not only showed improvement in efficacy [versus chemotherapy], but had a favorable safety profile and a favorable quality of life profile as compared to standard chemotherapy. If this drug gets approved, we need more work in terms of biomarkers of response and resistance to understand how to select these agents and how to sequence these different agents,” Dr. Bardia said in an interview. He is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center.

Dato-DXd has a proprietary linker technology that makes it more stable in plasma and more selective for tumor cells, where overexpressed enzymes cleave it and lead to release of the drug. This reduces off-target toxicity, said Dr. Bardia.

The primary results from TROPION-Breast01, presented at ESMO 2023, showed statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (hazard ratio, [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) and a higher overall response rate (36.4% versus 22.9%).

At SABCS, Dr. Bardia presented additional PFS sub-analyses and safety data.

TROPION-Breast01 included 732 patients who had failed or were ineligible for endocrine therapy, and who had received 1-2 lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic or inoperable setting. They were randomized to dato-DXd or chemotherapy.

The median PFS as determined by blinded independent central review was longer in the dato-DXd group (6.9 versus 4.5 months; P < .0001). Time to first subsequent therapy was also longer (median 8.2 versus 5.0 months; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.45-0.64).

PFS benefit was similar regardless of duration of previous CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment. There was no significant difference in median PFS among patients with brain metastases at baseline (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.39-1.42).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were less common in the dato-DXd group (21% versus 45%), as were the incidences of dose interruption (12% versus 25%), treatment-related neutropenia (11% versus 42%), grade 3 or higher treatment-related neutropenia (1% versus 31%), neutropenia-related dose interruption (0% versus 17%), and neutropenia-related dose reduction (0.3% versus 13%). G-CSF usage was lower in the dato-DXd group during treatment (3% versus 22%) and after treatment (0.3% versus 8%).

Stomatitis was more common in the dato-DXd group (50% versus 13%), including grade 3 (6% versus 3%). Dose reduction due to stomatitis was also more common (12% versus 1%), and discontinuation occurred in just 1 patient (0.3%) in the dato-DXd group.

The median time to confirmed deterioration, as measured by the Global Health Status/Quality of Life scale, was longer in the dato-DXd group (9.0 versus 4.8 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98).

During the Q & A period after the talk, Marc E. Lippman, MD, professor of oncology and director of the breast cancer program at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, questioned the assumption that Trop-2 is universally expressed in breast cancer, and asked if there were any data on outcomes associated with its expression. “That’s a very good question,” said Dr. Bardia. He said that the team is working on the problem, including identifying the best tool to measure Trop-2 expression, but also addressing whether expression changes over time. Finally, the team hopes to determine if treatment response might relate to levels of expression.

Trop-2 expression was studied in the ASCENT trial that examined sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, and there was no apparent link. “In general, we don’t see a very strong correlation between Trop-2 expression and outcomes. In the ASCENT trial, even in patients who had low expression of Trop-2, the outcomes with Trop-2 antibody drug conjugates [were] superior to standard chemotherapy,” replied Dr. Bardia.

Ron Bose, MD, PhD, also asked if there would be broader biomarker analyses of responders versus nonresponders to dato-dxd. “I think it’s very important to know, what are the biomarkers that predict efficacy for dato-dxd. The median progression free survival improvement was only about two months, maybe a little bit more, so knowing which patients are going to get the most benefit will be very important,” Dr. Bose said in an interview. Dr. Bose is associate professor of oncology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Overall, he was impressed by the results. “The median progression free survival benefit is moderate, but the safety I think is really particularly strong, and when I’m thinking about this for my patients, the fact that there is a progression free survival benefit, plus a safety benefit [compared to chemotherapy] makes it very appealing,” he said.

Dr. Bose has consulted for Genentech. Dr. Bardia has been on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Radius Health/Menarini, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Pharma/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, Mersana, and Foundation Medicine. He has received research grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health/Menarini, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Pharma/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

SAN ANTONIO — In endocrine-resistant, HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan (dato-DXd, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca) has greater efficacy and a better safety profile than investigator-chosen chemotherapy, according to the latest results from the TROPION-Breast01 clinical trial.

If approved, the ADC would join sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead) as agents that target trophoblast cell-surface antigen-2 (Trop-2), which is universally expressed in breast cancer, according to Aditya Bardia, MD, who presented the new results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Dato-DXd not only showed improvement in efficacy [versus chemotherapy], but had a favorable safety profile and a favorable quality of life profile as compared to standard chemotherapy. If this drug gets approved, we need more work in terms of biomarkers of response and resistance to understand how to select these agents and how to sequence these different agents,” Dr. Bardia said in an interview. He is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center.

Dato-DXd has a proprietary linker technology that makes it more stable in plasma and more selective for tumor cells, where overexpressed enzymes cleave it and lead to release of the drug. This reduces off-target toxicity, said Dr. Bardia.

The primary results from TROPION-Breast01, presented at ESMO 2023, showed statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (hazard ratio, [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) and a higher overall response rate (36.4% versus 22.9%).

At SABCS, Dr. Bardia presented additional PFS sub-analyses and safety data.

TROPION-Breast01 included 732 patients who had failed or were ineligible for endocrine therapy, and who had received 1-2 lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic or inoperable setting. They were randomized to dato-DXd or chemotherapy.

The median PFS as determined by blinded independent central review was longer in the dato-DXd group (6.9 versus 4.5 months; P < .0001). Time to first subsequent therapy was also longer (median 8.2 versus 5.0 months; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.45-0.64).

PFS benefit was similar regardless of duration of previous CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment. There was no significant difference in median PFS among patients with brain metastases at baseline (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.39-1.42).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were less common in the dato-DXd group (21% versus 45%), as were the incidences of dose interruption (12% versus 25%), treatment-related neutropenia (11% versus 42%), grade 3 or higher treatment-related neutropenia (1% versus 31%), neutropenia-related dose interruption (0% versus 17%), and neutropenia-related dose reduction (0.3% versus 13%). G-CSF usage was lower in the dato-DXd group during treatment (3% versus 22%) and after treatment (0.3% versus 8%).

Stomatitis was more common in the dato-DXd group (50% versus 13%), including grade 3 (6% versus 3%). Dose reduction due to stomatitis was also more common (12% versus 1%), and discontinuation occurred in just 1 patient (0.3%) in the dato-DXd group.

The median time to confirmed deterioration, as measured by the Global Health Status/Quality of Life scale, was longer in the dato-DXd group (9.0 versus 4.8 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98).

During the Q & A period after the talk, Marc E. Lippman, MD, professor of oncology and director of the breast cancer program at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, questioned the assumption that Trop-2 is universally expressed in breast cancer, and asked if there were any data on outcomes associated with its expression. “That’s a very good question,” said Dr. Bardia. He said that the team is working on the problem, including identifying the best tool to measure Trop-2 expression, but also addressing whether expression changes over time. Finally, the team hopes to determine if treatment response might relate to levels of expression.

Trop-2 expression was studied in the ASCENT trial that examined sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, and there was no apparent link. “In general, we don’t see a very strong correlation between Trop-2 expression and outcomes. In the ASCENT trial, even in patients who had low expression of Trop-2, the outcomes with Trop-2 antibody drug conjugates [were] superior to standard chemotherapy,” replied Dr. Bardia.

Ron Bose, MD, PhD, also asked if there would be broader biomarker analyses of responders versus nonresponders to dato-dxd. “I think it’s very important to know, what are the biomarkers that predict efficacy for dato-dxd. The median progression free survival improvement was only about two months, maybe a little bit more, so knowing which patients are going to get the most benefit will be very important,” Dr. Bose said in an interview. Dr. Bose is associate professor of oncology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Overall, he was impressed by the results. “The median progression free survival benefit is moderate, but the safety I think is really particularly strong, and when I’m thinking about this for my patients, the fact that there is a progression free survival benefit, plus a safety benefit [compared to chemotherapy] makes it very appealing,” he said.

Dr. Bose has consulted for Genentech. Dr. Bardia has been on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Radius Health/Menarini, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Pharma/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, Mersana, and Foundation Medicine. He has received research grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health/Menarini, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Pharma/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

SAN ANTONIO — In endocrine-resistant, HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan (dato-DXd, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca) has greater efficacy and a better safety profile than investigator-chosen chemotherapy, according to the latest results from the TROPION-Breast01 clinical trial.

If approved, the ADC would join sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead) as agents that target trophoblast cell-surface antigen-2 (Trop-2), which is universally expressed in breast cancer, according to Aditya Bardia, MD, who presented the new results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Dato-DXd not only showed improvement in efficacy [versus chemotherapy], but had a favorable safety profile and a favorable quality of life profile as compared to standard chemotherapy. If this drug gets approved, we need more work in terms of biomarkers of response and resistance to understand how to select these agents and how to sequence these different agents,” Dr. Bardia said in an interview. He is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center.

Dato-DXd has a proprietary linker technology that makes it more stable in plasma and more selective for tumor cells, where overexpressed enzymes cleave it and lead to release of the drug. This reduces off-target toxicity, said Dr. Bardia.

The primary results from TROPION-Breast01, presented at ESMO 2023, showed statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (hazard ratio, [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) and a higher overall response rate (36.4% versus 22.9%).

At SABCS, Dr. Bardia presented additional PFS sub-analyses and safety data.

TROPION-Breast01 included 732 patients who had failed or were ineligible for endocrine therapy, and who had received 1-2 lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic or inoperable setting. They were randomized to dato-DXd or chemotherapy.

The median PFS as determined by blinded independent central review was longer in the dato-DXd group (6.9 versus 4.5 months; P < .0001). Time to first subsequent therapy was also longer (median 8.2 versus 5.0 months; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.45-0.64).

PFS benefit was similar regardless of duration of previous CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment. There was no significant difference in median PFS among patients with brain metastases at baseline (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.39-1.42).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were less common in the dato-DXd group (21% versus 45%), as were the incidences of dose interruption (12% versus 25%), treatment-related neutropenia (11% versus 42%), grade 3 or higher treatment-related neutropenia (1% versus 31%), neutropenia-related dose interruption (0% versus 17%), and neutropenia-related dose reduction (0.3% versus 13%). G-CSF usage was lower in the dato-DXd group during treatment (3% versus 22%) and after treatment (0.3% versus 8%).

Stomatitis was more common in the dato-DXd group (50% versus 13%), including grade 3 (6% versus 3%). Dose reduction due to stomatitis was also more common (12% versus 1%), and discontinuation occurred in just 1 patient (0.3%) in the dato-DXd group.

The median time to confirmed deterioration, as measured by the Global Health Status/Quality of Life scale, was longer in the dato-DXd group (9.0 versus 4.8 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98).

During the Q & A period after the talk, Marc E. Lippman, MD, professor of oncology and director of the breast cancer program at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, questioned the assumption that Trop-2 is universally expressed in breast cancer, and asked if there were any data on outcomes associated with its expression. “That’s a very good question,” said Dr. Bardia. He said that the team is working on the problem, including identifying the best tool to measure Trop-2 expression, but also addressing whether expression changes over time. Finally, the team hopes to determine if treatment response might relate to levels of expression.

Trop-2 expression was studied in the ASCENT trial that examined sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, and there was no apparent link. “In general, we don’t see a very strong correlation between Trop-2 expression and outcomes. In the ASCENT trial, even in patients who had low expression of Trop-2, the outcomes with Trop-2 antibody drug conjugates [were] superior to standard chemotherapy,” replied Dr. Bardia.

Ron Bose, MD, PhD, also asked if there would be broader biomarker analyses of responders versus nonresponders to dato-dxd. “I think it’s very important to know, what are the biomarkers that predict efficacy for dato-dxd. The median progression free survival improvement was only about two months, maybe a little bit more, so knowing which patients are going to get the most benefit will be very important,” Dr. Bose said in an interview. Dr. Bose is associate professor of oncology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Overall, he was impressed by the results. “The median progression free survival benefit is moderate, but the safety I think is really particularly strong, and when I’m thinking about this for my patients, the fact that there is a progression free survival benefit, plus a safety benefit [compared to chemotherapy] makes it very appealing,” he said.

Dr. Bose has consulted for Genentech. Dr. Bardia has been on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Radius Health/Menarini, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Pharma/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, Mersana, and Foundation Medicine. He has received research grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health/Menarini, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Pharma/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

Pediatricians commonly are asked to see infants presenting with symptoms of colic. The frequent and intense crying associated with colic is understandably quite distressing to parents, who often worry about a serious underlying medical cause. There also is the stress of trying to soothe an irritable infant who often does not seem to respond to the typical interventions.

Conventional wisdom about colic has been that the behaviors are the result of some gastrointestinal problem that, while not perfectly understood, tends to be mercifully self-limited and not predictive of future medical or mental health problems. This perspective then leads to pediatricians typically offering mainly sympathy and reassurance at these visits.

A new study,¹ however, challenges some of this traditional thinking. The data come from a remarkable longitudinal study called the Generation R Study (R being Rotterdam in the Netherlands) that has prospectively studied a group of nearly 5,000 children from before birth into adolescence. Colic symptoms were briefly assessed when infants were about 3 months old and emotional-behavioral problems have been prospectively measured at multiple time points subsequently using well-validated rating scales.

Dr. Rettew

The main finding of the study was excessive crying in infancy actually was significantly associated with higher levels of emotional-behavioral problems later in childhood and, to a lesser extent, in adolescence. This held for both internalizing problems (like anxiety and depressive symptoms) and externalizing problems (like defiance and aggressive behavior). At age 10, participants also underwent an MRI scan and those who were excessive criers as infants were found to have a smaller amygdala, a region known for being important in regulating emotions.

The authors concluded that colicky behavior in infancy may reflect some underlying temperamental vulnerabilities and may have more predictive value than previously thought. The connection between excessive crying and a measurable brain region difference later in life is also interesting, although these kinds of brain imaging findings have been notoriously difficult to interpret clinically.

Overall, this is a solid study that deserves to be considered. Colic may reflect a bit more than most of us have been taught and shouldn’t necessarily be “shrugged off,” as the authors state in their discussion.

At the same time, however, it is important not to overinterpret the findings. The magnitude of the effects were on the small side (about 0.2 of a standard deviation) and most children with excessive crying in early infancy did not manifest high levels of mental health problems later in life. The mothers of high crying infants also had slightly higher levels of mental health problems themselves so there could be other mechanisms at work here, such as genetic differences between the two groups.

So how could a pediatrician best use this new information without taking things too far? Regardless of the question of whether the excessive crying infancy is a true risk factor for later behavior problems (in the causal sense) or whether it represents more of a marker for something else, its presence so early in life offers an opportunity. Primary care clinicians would still likely want to provide the reassurance that has typically been given in these visits but perhaps with the caveat that some of these kids go on to struggle a bit more with mental health and that they might benefit from some additional support. We are not talking about prophylactic medications here, but something like additional parenting skills. Especially if you, as the pediatrician, suspect that the parents might benefit from expanding their parenting toolkit already, here is a nice opportunity to invite them to learn some new approaches and skills — framed in a way that focuses on the temperament of the child rather than any “deficits” you perceive in the parents. Some parents may be more receptive and less defensive to the idea of participating in parent training under the framework that they are doing this because they have a temperamentally more challenging child (rather than feeling that they are deficient in basic parenting skills).

It’s always a good idea to know about what resources are available in the community when it comes to teaching parenting skills. In addition to scientifically supported books and podcasts, there has been a steady increase in reliable websites, apps, and other digital platforms related to parenting, as well as standard in-person groups and classes. This could also be a great use of an integrated behavioral health professional for practices fortunate enough to have one.

In summary, there is some new evidence that colic can represent a little more than “just gas,” and while we shouldn’t take this one study to the extreme, there may be some good opportunities here to discuss and support good parenting practices in general.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

Reference

1. Sammallahti S et al. Excessive crying, behavior problems, and amygdala volume: A study from infancy to adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023 Jun;62(6):675-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2023.01.014.

Pediatricians commonly are asked to see infants presenting with symptoms of colic. The frequent and intense crying associated with colic is understandably quite distressing to parents, who often worry about a serious underlying medical cause. There also is the stress of trying to soothe an irritable infant who often does not seem to respond to the typical interventions.

Conventional wisdom about colic has been that the behaviors are the result of some gastrointestinal problem that, while not perfectly understood, tends to be mercifully self-limited and not predictive of future medical or mental health problems. This perspective then leads to pediatricians typically offering mainly sympathy and reassurance at these visits.

A new study,¹ however, challenges some of this traditional thinking. The data come from a remarkable longitudinal study called the Generation R Study (R being Rotterdam in the Netherlands) that has prospectively studied a group of nearly 5,000 children from before birth into adolescence. Colic symptoms were briefly assessed when infants were about 3 months old and emotional-behavioral problems have been prospectively measured at multiple time points subsequently using well-validated rating scales.

Dr. Rettew

The main finding of the study was excessive crying in infancy actually was significantly associated with higher levels of emotional-behavioral problems later in childhood and, to a lesser extent, in adolescence. This held for both internalizing problems (like anxiety and depressive symptoms) and externalizing problems (like defiance and aggressive behavior). At age 10, participants also underwent an MRI scan and those who were excessive criers as infants were found to have a smaller amygdala, a region known for being important in regulating emotions.

The authors concluded that colicky behavior in infancy may reflect some underlying temperamental vulnerabilities and may have more predictive value than previously thought. The connection between excessive crying and a measurable brain region difference later in life is also interesting, although these kinds of brain imaging findings have been notoriously difficult to interpret clinically.

Overall, this is a solid study that deserves to be considered. Colic may reflect a bit more than most of us have been taught and shouldn’t necessarily be “shrugged off,” as the authors state in their discussion.

At the same time, however, it is important not to overinterpret the findings. The magnitude of the effects were on the small side (about 0.2 of a standard deviation) and most children with excessive crying in early infancy did not manifest high levels of mental health problems later in life. The mothers of high crying infants also had slightly higher levels of mental health problems themselves so there could be other mechanisms at work here, such as genetic differences between the two groups.

So how could a pediatrician best use this new information without taking things too far? Regardless of the question of whether the excessive crying infancy is a true risk factor for later behavior problems (in the causal sense) or whether it represents more of a marker for something else, its presence so early in life offers an opportunity. Primary care clinicians would still likely want to provide the reassurance that has typically been given in these visits but perhaps with the caveat that some of these kids go on to struggle a bit more with mental health and that they might benefit from some additional support. We are not talking about prophylactic medications here, but something like additional parenting skills. Especially if you, as the pediatrician, suspect that the parents might benefit from expanding their parenting toolkit already, here is a nice opportunity to invite them to learn some new approaches and skills — framed in a way that focuses on the temperament of the child rather than any “deficits” you perceive in the parents. Some parents may be more receptive and less defensive to the idea of participating in parent training under the framework that they are doing this because they have a temperamentally more challenging child (rather than feeling that they are deficient in basic parenting skills).

It’s always a good idea to know about what resources are available in the community when it comes to teaching parenting skills. In addition to scientifically supported books and podcasts, there has been a steady increase in reliable websites, apps, and other digital platforms related to parenting, as well as standard in-person groups and classes. This could also be a great use of an integrated behavioral health professional for practices fortunate enough to have one.

In summary, there is some new evidence that colic can represent a little more than “just gas,” and while we shouldn’t take this one study to the extreme, there may be some good opportunities here to discuss and support good parenting practices in general.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

Reference

1. Sammallahti S et al. Excessive crying, behavior problems, and amygdala volume: A study from infancy to adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023 Jun;62(6):675-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2023.01.014.

Pediatricians commonly are asked to see infants presenting with symptoms of colic. The frequent and intense crying associated with colic is understandably quite distressing to parents, who often worry about a serious underlying medical cause. There also is the stress of trying to soothe an irritable infant who often does not seem to respond to the typical interventions.

Conventional wisdom about colic has been that the behaviors are the result of some gastrointestinal problem that, while not perfectly understood, tends to be mercifully self-limited and not predictive of future medical or mental health problems. This perspective then leads to pediatricians typically offering mainly sympathy and reassurance at these visits.

A new study,¹ however, challenges some of this traditional thinking. The data come from a remarkable longitudinal study called the Generation R Study (R being Rotterdam in the Netherlands) that has prospectively studied a group of nearly 5,000 children from before birth into adolescence. Colic symptoms were briefly assessed when infants were about 3 months old and emotional-behavioral problems have been prospectively measured at multiple time points subsequently using well-validated rating scales.

Dr. Rettew

The main finding of the study was excessive crying in infancy actually was significantly associated with higher levels of emotional-behavioral problems later in childhood and, to a lesser extent, in adolescence. This held for both internalizing problems (like anxiety and depressive symptoms) and externalizing problems (like defiance and aggressive behavior). At age 10, participants also underwent an MRI scan and those who were excessive criers as infants were found to have a smaller amygdala, a region known for being important in regulating emotions.

The authors concluded that colicky behavior in infancy may reflect some underlying temperamental vulnerabilities and may have more predictive value than previously thought. The connection between excessive crying and a measurable brain region difference later in life is also interesting, although these kinds of brain imaging findings have been notoriously difficult to interpret clinically.

Overall, this is a solid study that deserves to be considered. Colic may reflect a bit more than most of us have been taught and shouldn’t necessarily be “shrugged off,” as the authors state in their discussion.

At the same time, however, it is important not to overinterpret the findings. The magnitude of the effects were on the small side (about 0.2 of a standard deviation) and most children with excessive crying in early infancy did not manifest high levels of mental health problems later in life. The mothers of high crying infants also had slightly higher levels of mental health problems themselves so there could be other mechanisms at work here, such as genetic differences between the two groups.

So how could a pediatrician best use this new information without taking things too far? Regardless of the question of whether the excessive crying infancy is a true risk factor for later behavior problems (in the causal sense) or whether it represents more of a marker for something else, its presence so early in life offers an opportunity. Primary care clinicians would still likely want to provide the reassurance that has typically been given in these visits but perhaps with the caveat that some of these kids go on to struggle a bit more with mental health and that they might benefit from some additional support. We are not talking about prophylactic medications here, but something like additional parenting skills. Especially if you, as the pediatrician, suspect that the parents might benefit from expanding their parenting toolkit already, here is a nice opportunity to invite them to learn some new approaches and skills — framed in a way that focuses on the temperament of the child rather than any “deficits” you perceive in the parents. Some parents may be more receptive and less defensive to the idea of participating in parent training under the framework that they are doing this because they have a temperamentally more challenging child (rather than feeling that they are deficient in basic parenting skills).

It’s always a good idea to know about what resources are available in the community when it comes to teaching parenting skills. In addition to scientifically supported books and podcasts, there has been a steady increase in reliable websites, apps, and other digital platforms related to parenting, as well as standard in-person groups and classes. This could also be a great use of an integrated behavioral health professional for practices fortunate enough to have one.

In summary, there is some new evidence that colic can represent a little more than “just gas,” and while we shouldn’t take this one study to the extreme, there may be some good opportunities here to discuss and support good parenting practices in general.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. His latest book is “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

Reference

1. Sammallahti S et al. Excessive crying, behavior problems, and amygdala volume: A study from infancy to adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023 Jun;62(6):675-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2023.01.014.

MADRID — The role of vitamin D in the risk for overweight and obesity has been the subject of multiple studies. Though there’s still not enough evidence to reach a decisive conclusion, several ongoing debates are setting the stage for future research.

Irene Bretón, MD, PhD, discussed these debates in a presentation titled “Vitamin D Deficiency and Obesity: Cause or Consequence?” delivered at the 64th Congress of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition (SEEN). Dr. Bretón is president of the Foundation of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition.

“Vitamin D deficiency can arise from different causes. The percentage that can be attributed to solar radiation is extremely variable. Some studies put it at 80%, while others suggest lower figures. Many diseases have also been associated with vitamin D deficiency or with low vitamin D levels (which are not always at the level of deficiency). Nonetheless, we still have a lot to learn about these associations,” she said.

Dr. Bretón pointed out that many of these studies overlook parathyroid hormone testing. “I also think it’s more appropriate to discuss nutritional status of vitamin D as opposed to serum levels, because these data can be misleading. It would be interesting to focus more on vitamin D metabolism and not just plasma levels.”
 

Vitamin Deficiency 

To answer whether obesity and its complications could be related to low vitamin D levels, Dr. Bretón pointed to this vitamin’s profile in various regions of the world and called attention to the fact that none of the studies on this topic include populations with roughly adequate levels of this vitamin.

“This highlights the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency worldwide. It affects approximately 50% of the population, has been described in all age groups, and affects both men and women — particularly pregnant women and those in menopause — and older adults,” said Dr. Bretón.

She also cited the figures backing this fact: 88% have 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels < 30 ng/mL, 37% have levels < 20 ng/mL, and 7% have levels < 10 ng/mL.

“These percentages have brought us to consider their potential link to the current obesity epidemic. Studies in humans have observed a relationship between low plasma levels and markers for obesity and adiposity. Free 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D are known to be reduced in obesity, and treatments to correct vitamin D deficiency are less effective in people with the disease,” she noted.

Regarding the impact in “the opposite direction,” that is, whether obesity affects the nutritional status of vitamin D, Bretón explained that observational studies have generally found a relationship between overweight and obesity and lower plasma levels of vitamin D. “Data from these studies show that each kg/m² increase in [body mass index (BMI)] is associated with a 1.15% decrease in 25-hydroxyvitamin D. These studies also show that the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is 35% higher in patients with obesity and 24% higher in those that are overweight compared with individuals of normal weight. A relationship has been observed between vitamin D deficiency and body fat percentage in men and women and in all age groups,” explained Dr. Bretón.

Dr. Bretón noted that the diseases most closely associated with obesity are type 2 diabetes, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cancer (colon, breast, prostate, and ovarian), inflammatory liver disease, asthma, and inflammatory diseases.
 

Mechanisms Involved

Dr. Bretón reviewed the latest evidence on the mechanisms involved in the relationship between obesity and vitamin D deficiency. “People with obesity may experience less solar exposure (more of their body is covered, or they spend more time indoors), but reduced exposure to the sun is known to have less of an influence on vitamin D levels. Studies where people were given radiation to test how their plasma levels of vitamin D respond have found that there is a smaller effect in people with obesity, and that the effect is inversely correlated with BMI: the higher the BMI, the less vitamin D levels increase under exposure to solar radiation.”

Another mechanism is sequestration in adipose tissue, which is the largest reservoir of vitamin D in the body. Nevertheless, factors such as vitamin D concentration in this tissue, regulation of local metabolism, and vitamin uptake and release are less understood. It is therefore unclear whether this mechanism acts to regulate plasma levels.

“This is why severe vitamin D deficiencies (and deficiencies of other fat-soluble vitamins) that occur after bariatric surgery are often not seen in the first year after surgery but develop much later, when the vitamin that has accumulated in adipose tissue is released as weight is lost,” said Dr. Bretón.

“On the other hand, the volumetric dilution in blood that occurs in relation to total body fat content may explain the variability of plasma levels and the response to treatment. Predictive equations have been described,” she explained.
 

The Prenatal Stage

Dr. Bretón mentioned that the best setting for studying the impact of vitamin D and preventing future obesity is during the initial stages of life, when adipogenesis and fetal programming are occurring.

“Studies in animals have shown how maternal vitamin D deficiency (due to nongenetic or nonepigenetic mechanisms) leads to changes in adipogenesis and programming of adipose reserves. A fetal or perinatal environment with low vitamin D levels programs all these mechanisms differently, and not just adipogenesis and adipocyte differentiation in utero,” she added.

Various mechanisms involved in vitamin D deficiency as a cause of obesity are currently being studied in the prenatal setting. One such mechanism is the interaction between the vitamin D receptor and 1 alpha–hydroxylase, which are present in the adipose tissue and help modulate lipid metabolism.

“The vitamin D receptor is particularly expressed in the early stages of adipocyte differentiation, but its expression drops off as the differentiation process continues. Vitamin D receptor knockout mice have a slender phenotype and are resistant to diet-induced obesity. They also accumulate less fat with age and a high-fat diet,” explained Dr. Bretón.

“However, vitamin D also influences the production of inflammatory adipokines in these early stages of life. It specifically plays a central role in modulating the inflammatory response in adipose tissue. These anti-inflammatory effects appear to be mediated by inhibition of [NF–kappa B] and MAPK signaling pathways. All of this suggests that vitamin D influences both adipogenesis and how the adipose tissue functions,” she added.
 

Weight Loss 

When considering the link between vitamin D and obesity in the context of weight loss, Dr. Bretón explained that studies in this area suggest that weight loss per se is not sufficient to increase serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Rather, increased synthesis by the skin or increased dietary intake are the most relevant factors for the nutritional status of this vitamin.

“A recent systematic review looking at the relationship between vitamin D levels and weight loss via caloric restriction and exercise showed a small but significant effect in the sense that weight loss increases vitamin D levels. However, other meta-analyses have not found significant results in this area,” she said.

“In my opinion, these results depend on how long the intervention is performed. If a lot of weight is lost in a short time frame, vitamin D is released into the adipose tissue, a process that doesn’t have any significant impact on the nutritional status of this vitamin. Generally, the effect of this relationship is small (1.5 ng/mL) and of little clinical relevance. Moreover, many systematic reviews have analyzed this relationship following bariatric surgery and have also come up with inconclusive results,” Dr. Bretón added.

What role do treatments play in correcting vitamin D deficiency? Dr. Bretón explained that studies that have examined how fortified foods affect obesity show that though these foods don’t cause significant weight changes, they do affect fat mass and waist circumference. This finding suggests that fortified foods have some impact, not necessarily on weight but perhaps on adiposity.

“To rightly value all this data, one has to pay special attention to the environment and the context where the research took place (children or adults, baseline vitamin D levels, and so on). If fortified foods are directly supplemented with cholecalciferol, the results are very inconsistent. We therefore cannot say that treatment with vitamin D can reduce body weight and adiposity,” she said.

When it comes to the complications from obesity, studies of vitamin D supplementation, cancer, and cardiovascular disease did not find any beneficial effect on preventing these pathologies.

For obesity’s impact on vitamin D supplementation, it is known that the levels achieved are lower in patients with obesity compared with patients of normal weight. “Compared with other interventions, however, these levels (15.27 ng/mL) are clinically relevant,” she noted.
 

Future Directions

Dr. Bretón explained that all this evidence has revealed many debates regarding the association of vitamin D levels with obesity. “For example, it appears that obesity could predict low vitamin D levels (not necessarily a deficiency). In turn, these low levels could cause obesity, especially during embryonic development, when programming of adipocyte physiology is taking place.”

Dr. Bretón sees many confounding factors that will need to be elucidated in the future. “One factor is that we aren’t sure whether the patient we’re seeing has vitamin D deficiency or if other factors are in play, like time since weight loss, laboratory technique used to measure vitamin D, nutritional status, geographic location, time of year when the test is performed, et cetera. You also have to assess other factors having to do with obesity, like how adiposity is being measured and whether BMI reflects that adiposity.”

Last, the expert reviewed the major research efforts underway that are based on evidence that vitamin D is associated with insulin resistance. Studies are being performed on pancreatic function, the role of vitamin D levels in ovarian physiology related to insulin resistance (specifically, the role of hyperandrogenism), adipose tissue (vitamin D receptor expression, volumetric dilution), and other components of metabolic syndrome to determine how this vitamin’s status influences the renin-angiotensin system, apoptosis, and cardiovascular risk.

“There is also plenty of research going on surrounding metabolic liver disease, which has a lot to do with the microbiota. So, they’re studying the relationship between vitamin D and dysbiosis, especially regarding local immunomodulation in the gut in relation to the microbiota,” she added.

Another area of research is cancer, focusing primarily on analyzing the nutritional status of vitamin D in relation to the microbiome and how this status may affect the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. “It would be interesting to find out whether the effect of immunotherapy varies depending on the patient’s vitamin D status,” concluded Dr. Bretón.

Dr. Bretón’s lecture at the 64th Congress of the SEEN was sponsored by the Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies (FAES).

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition.  A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — The role of vitamin D in the risk for overweight and obesity has been the subject of multiple studies. Though there’s still not enough evidence to reach a decisive conclusion, several ongoing debates are setting the stage for future research.

Irene Bretón, MD, PhD, discussed these debates in a presentation titled “Vitamin D Deficiency and Obesity: Cause or Consequence?” delivered at the 64th Congress of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition (SEEN). Dr. Bretón is president of the Foundation of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition.

“Vitamin D deficiency can arise from different causes. The percentage that can be attributed to solar radiation is extremely variable. Some studies put it at 80%, while others suggest lower figures. Many diseases have also been associated with vitamin D deficiency or with low vitamin D levels (which are not always at the level of deficiency). Nonetheless, we still have a lot to learn about these associations,” she said.

Dr. Bretón pointed out that many of these studies overlook parathyroid hormone testing. “I also think it’s more appropriate to discuss nutritional status of vitamin D as opposed to serum levels, because these data can be misleading. It would be interesting to focus more on vitamin D metabolism and not just plasma levels.”
 

Vitamin Deficiency 

To answer whether obesity and its complications could be related to low vitamin D levels, Dr. Bretón pointed to this vitamin’s profile in various regions of the world and called attention to the fact that none of the studies on this topic include populations with roughly adequate levels of this vitamin.

“This highlights the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency worldwide. It affects approximately 50% of the population, has been described in all age groups, and affects both men and women — particularly pregnant women and those in menopause — and older adults,” said Dr. Bretón.

She also cited the figures backing this fact: 88% have 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels < 30 ng/mL, 37% have levels < 20 ng/mL, and 7% have levels < 10 ng/mL.

“These percentages have brought us to consider their potential link to the current obesity epidemic. Studies in humans have observed a relationship between low plasma levels and markers for obesity and adiposity. Free 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D are known to be reduced in obesity, and treatments to correct vitamin D deficiency are less effective in people with the disease,” she noted.

Regarding the impact in “the opposite direction,” that is, whether obesity affects the nutritional status of vitamin D, Bretón explained that observational studies have generally found a relationship between overweight and obesity and lower plasma levels of vitamin D. “Data from these studies show that each kg/m² increase in [body mass index (BMI)] is associated with a 1.15% decrease in 25-hydroxyvitamin D. These studies also show that the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is 35% higher in patients with obesity and 24% higher in those that are overweight compared with individuals of normal weight. A relationship has been observed between vitamin D deficiency and body fat percentage in men and women and in all age groups,” explained Dr. Bretón.

Dr. Bretón noted that the diseases most closely associated with obesity are type 2 diabetes, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cancer (colon, breast, prostate, and ovarian), inflammatory liver disease, asthma, and inflammatory diseases.
 

Mechanisms Involved

Dr. Bretón reviewed the latest evidence on the mechanisms involved in the relationship between obesity and vitamin D deficiency. “People with obesity may experience less solar exposure (more of their body is covered, or they spend more time indoors), but reduced exposure to the sun is known to have less of an influence on vitamin D levels. Studies where people were given radiation to test how their plasma levels of vitamin D respond have found that there is a smaller effect in people with obesity, and that the effect is inversely correlated with BMI: the higher the BMI, the less vitamin D levels increase under exposure to solar radiation.”

Another mechanism is sequestration in adipose tissue, which is the largest reservoir of vitamin D in the body. Nevertheless, factors such as vitamin D concentration in this tissue, regulation of local metabolism, and vitamin uptake and release are less understood. It is therefore unclear whether this mechanism acts to regulate plasma levels.

“This is why severe vitamin D deficiencies (and deficiencies of other fat-soluble vitamins) that occur after bariatric surgery are often not seen in the first year after surgery but develop much later, when the vitamin that has accumulated in adipose tissue is released as weight is lost,” said Dr. Bretón.

“On the other hand, the volumetric dilution in blood that occurs in relation to total body fat content may explain the variability of plasma levels and the response to treatment. Predictive equations have been described,” she explained.
 

The Prenatal Stage

Dr. Bretón mentioned that the best setting for studying the impact of vitamin D and preventing future obesity is during the initial stages of life, when adipogenesis and fetal programming are occurring.

“Studies in animals have shown how maternal vitamin D deficiency (due to nongenetic or nonepigenetic mechanisms) leads to changes in adipogenesis and programming of adipose reserves. A fetal or perinatal environment with low vitamin D levels programs all these mechanisms differently, and not just adipogenesis and adipocyte differentiation in utero,” she added.

Various mechanisms involved in vitamin D deficiency as a cause of obesity are currently being studied in the prenatal setting. One such mechanism is the interaction between the vitamin D receptor and 1 alpha–hydroxylase, which are present in the adipose tissue and help modulate lipid metabolism.

“The vitamin D receptor is particularly expressed in the early stages of adipocyte differentiation, but its expression drops off as the differentiation process continues. Vitamin D receptor knockout mice have a slender phenotype and are resistant to diet-induced obesity. They also accumulate less fat with age and a high-fat diet,” explained Dr. Bretón.

“However, vitamin D also influences the production of inflammatory adipokines in these early stages of life. It specifically plays a central role in modulating the inflammatory response in adipose tissue. These anti-inflammatory effects appear to be mediated by inhibition of [NF–kappa B] and MAPK signaling pathways. All of this suggests that vitamin D influences both adipogenesis and how the adipose tissue functions,” she added.
 

Weight Loss 

When considering the link between vitamin D and obesity in the context of weight loss, Dr. Bretón explained that studies in this area suggest that weight loss per se is not sufficient to increase serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Rather, increased synthesis by the skin or increased dietary intake are the most relevant factors for the nutritional status of this vitamin.

“A recent systematic review looking at the relationship between vitamin D levels and weight loss via caloric restriction and exercise showed a small but significant effect in the sense that weight loss increases vitamin D levels. However, other meta-analyses have not found significant results in this area,” she said.

“In my opinion, these results depend on how long the intervention is performed. If a lot of weight is lost in a short time frame, vitamin D is released into the adipose tissue, a process that doesn’t have any significant impact on the nutritional status of this vitamin. Generally, the effect of this relationship is small (1.5 ng/mL) and of little clinical relevance. Moreover, many systematic reviews have analyzed this relationship following bariatric surgery and have also come up with inconclusive results,” Dr. Bretón added.

What role do treatments play in correcting vitamin D deficiency? Dr. Bretón explained that studies that have examined how fortified foods affect obesity show that though these foods don’t cause significant weight changes, they do affect fat mass and waist circumference. This finding suggests that fortified foods have some impact, not necessarily on weight but perhaps on adiposity.

“To rightly value all this data, one has to pay special attention to the environment and the context where the research took place (children or adults, baseline vitamin D levels, and so on). If fortified foods are directly supplemented with cholecalciferol, the results are very inconsistent. We therefore cannot say that treatment with vitamin D can reduce body weight and adiposity,” she said.

When it comes to the complications from obesity, studies of vitamin D supplementation, cancer, and cardiovascular disease did not find any beneficial effect on preventing these pathologies.

For obesity’s impact on vitamin D supplementation, it is known that the levels achieved are lower in patients with obesity compared with patients of normal weight. “Compared with other interventions, however, these levels (15.27 ng/mL) are clinically relevant,” she noted.
 

Future Directions

Dr. Bretón explained that all this evidence has revealed many debates regarding the association of vitamin D levels with obesity. “For example, it appears that obesity could predict low vitamin D levels (not necessarily a deficiency). In turn, these low levels could cause obesity, especially during embryonic development, when programming of adipocyte physiology is taking place.”

Dr. Bretón sees many confounding factors that will need to be elucidated in the future. “One factor is that we aren’t sure whether the patient we’re seeing has vitamin D deficiency or if other factors are in play, like time since weight loss, laboratory technique used to measure vitamin D, nutritional status, geographic location, time of year when the test is performed, et cetera. You also have to assess other factors having to do with obesity, like how adiposity is being measured and whether BMI reflects that adiposity.”

Last, the expert reviewed the major research efforts underway that are based on evidence that vitamin D is associated with insulin resistance. Studies are being performed on pancreatic function, the role of vitamin D levels in ovarian physiology related to insulin resistance (specifically, the role of hyperandrogenism), adipose tissue (vitamin D receptor expression, volumetric dilution), and other components of metabolic syndrome to determine how this vitamin’s status influences the renin-angiotensin system, apoptosis, and cardiovascular risk.

“There is also plenty of research going on surrounding metabolic liver disease, which has a lot to do with the microbiota. So, they’re studying the relationship between vitamin D and dysbiosis, especially regarding local immunomodulation in the gut in relation to the microbiota,” she added.

Another area of research is cancer, focusing primarily on analyzing the nutritional status of vitamin D in relation to the microbiome and how this status may affect the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. “It would be interesting to find out whether the effect of immunotherapy varies depending on the patient’s vitamin D status,” concluded Dr. Bretón.

Dr. Bretón’s lecture at the 64th Congress of the SEEN was sponsored by the Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies (FAES).

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition.  A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — The role of vitamin D in the risk for overweight and obesity has been the subject of multiple studies. Though there’s still not enough evidence to reach a decisive conclusion, several ongoing debates are setting the stage for future research.

Irene Bretón, MD, PhD, discussed these debates in a presentation titled “Vitamin D Deficiency and Obesity: Cause or Consequence?” delivered at the 64th Congress of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition (SEEN). Dr. Bretón is president of the Foundation of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition.

“Vitamin D deficiency can arise from different causes. The percentage that can be attributed to solar radiation is extremely variable. Some studies put it at 80%, while others suggest lower figures. Many diseases have also been associated with vitamin D deficiency or with low vitamin D levels (which are not always at the level of deficiency). Nonetheless, we still have a lot to learn about these associations,” she said.

Dr. Bretón pointed out that many of these studies overlook parathyroid hormone testing. “I also think it’s more appropriate to discuss nutritional status of vitamin D as opposed to serum levels, because these data can be misleading. It would be interesting to focus more on vitamin D metabolism and not just plasma levels.”
 

Vitamin Deficiency 

To answer whether obesity and its complications could be related to low vitamin D levels, Dr. Bretón pointed to this vitamin’s profile in various regions of the world and called attention to the fact that none of the studies on this topic include populations with roughly adequate levels of this vitamin.

“This highlights the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency worldwide. It affects approximately 50% of the population, has been described in all age groups, and affects both men and women — particularly pregnant women and those in menopause — and older adults,” said Dr. Bretón.

She also cited the figures backing this fact: 88% have 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels < 30 ng/mL, 37% have levels < 20 ng/mL, and 7% have levels < 10 ng/mL.

“These percentages have brought us to consider their potential link to the current obesity epidemic. Studies in humans have observed a relationship between low plasma levels and markers for obesity and adiposity. Free 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D are known to be reduced in obesity, and treatments to correct vitamin D deficiency are less effective in people with the disease,” she noted.

Regarding the impact in “the opposite direction,” that is, whether obesity affects the nutritional status of vitamin D, Bretón explained that observational studies have generally found a relationship between overweight and obesity and lower plasma levels of vitamin D. “Data from these studies show that each kg/m² increase in [body mass index (BMI)] is associated with a 1.15% decrease in 25-hydroxyvitamin D. These studies also show that the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is 35% higher in patients with obesity and 24% higher in those that are overweight compared with individuals of normal weight. A relationship has been observed between vitamin D deficiency and body fat percentage in men and women and in all age groups,” explained Dr. Bretón.

Dr. Bretón noted that the diseases most closely associated with obesity are type 2 diabetes, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cancer (colon, breast, prostate, and ovarian), inflammatory liver disease, asthma, and inflammatory diseases.
 

Mechanisms Involved

Dr. Bretón reviewed the latest evidence on the mechanisms involved in the relationship between obesity and vitamin D deficiency. “People with obesity may experience less solar exposure (more of their body is covered, or they spend more time indoors), but reduced exposure to the sun is known to have less of an influence on vitamin D levels. Studies where people were given radiation to test how their plasma levels of vitamin D respond have found that there is a smaller effect in people with obesity, and that the effect is inversely correlated with BMI: the higher the BMI, the less vitamin D levels increase under exposure to solar radiation.”

Another mechanism is sequestration in adipose tissue, which is the largest reservoir of vitamin D in the body. Nevertheless, factors such as vitamin D concentration in this tissue, regulation of local metabolism, and vitamin uptake and release are less understood. It is therefore unclear whether this mechanism acts to regulate plasma levels.

“This is why severe vitamin D deficiencies (and deficiencies of other fat-soluble vitamins) that occur after bariatric surgery are often not seen in the first year after surgery but develop much later, when the vitamin that has accumulated in adipose tissue is released as weight is lost,” said Dr. Bretón.

“On the other hand, the volumetric dilution in blood that occurs in relation to total body fat content may explain the variability of plasma levels and the response to treatment. Predictive equations have been described,” she explained.
 

The Prenatal Stage

Dr. Bretón mentioned that the best setting for studying the impact of vitamin D and preventing future obesity is during the initial stages of life, when adipogenesis and fetal programming are occurring.

“Studies in animals have shown how maternal vitamin D deficiency (due to nongenetic or nonepigenetic mechanisms) leads to changes in adipogenesis and programming of adipose reserves. A fetal or perinatal environment with low vitamin D levels programs all these mechanisms differently, and not just adipogenesis and adipocyte differentiation in utero,” she added.

Various mechanisms involved in vitamin D deficiency as a cause of obesity are currently being studied in the prenatal setting. One such mechanism is the interaction between the vitamin D receptor and 1 alpha–hydroxylase, which are present in the adipose tissue and help modulate lipid metabolism.

“The vitamin D receptor is particularly expressed in the early stages of adipocyte differentiation, but its expression drops off as the differentiation process continues. Vitamin D receptor knockout mice have a slender phenotype and are resistant to diet-induced obesity. They also accumulate less fat with age and a high-fat diet,” explained Dr. Bretón.

“However, vitamin D also influences the production of inflammatory adipokines in these early stages of life. It specifically plays a central role in modulating the inflammatory response in adipose tissue. These anti-inflammatory effects appear to be mediated by inhibition of [NF–kappa B] and MAPK signaling pathways. All of this suggests that vitamin D influences both adipogenesis and how the adipose tissue functions,” she added.
 

Weight Loss 

When considering the link between vitamin D and obesity in the context of weight loss, Dr. Bretón explained that studies in this area suggest that weight loss per se is not sufficient to increase serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Rather, increased synthesis by the skin or increased dietary intake are the most relevant factors for the nutritional status of this vitamin.

“A recent systematic review looking at the relationship between vitamin D levels and weight loss via caloric restriction and exercise showed a small but significant effect in the sense that weight loss increases vitamin D levels. However, other meta-analyses have not found significant results in this area,” she said.

“In my opinion, these results depend on how long the intervention is performed. If a lot of weight is lost in a short time frame, vitamin D is released into the adipose tissue, a process that doesn’t have any significant impact on the nutritional status of this vitamin. Generally, the effect of this relationship is small (1.5 ng/mL) and of little clinical relevance. Moreover, many systematic reviews have analyzed this relationship following bariatric surgery and have also come up with inconclusive results,” Dr. Bretón added.

What role do treatments play in correcting vitamin D deficiency? Dr. Bretón explained that studies that have examined how fortified foods affect obesity show that though these foods don’t cause significant weight changes, they do affect fat mass and waist circumference. This finding suggests that fortified foods have some impact, not necessarily on weight but perhaps on adiposity.

“To rightly value all this data, one has to pay special attention to the environment and the context where the research took place (children or adults, baseline vitamin D levels, and so on). If fortified foods are directly supplemented with cholecalciferol, the results are very inconsistent. We therefore cannot say that treatment with vitamin D can reduce body weight and adiposity,” she said.

When it comes to the complications from obesity, studies of vitamin D supplementation, cancer, and cardiovascular disease did not find any beneficial effect on preventing these pathologies.

For obesity’s impact on vitamin D supplementation, it is known that the levels achieved are lower in patients with obesity compared with patients of normal weight. “Compared with other interventions, however, these levels (15.27 ng/mL) are clinically relevant,” she noted.
 

Future Directions

Dr. Bretón explained that all this evidence has revealed many debates regarding the association of vitamin D levels with obesity. “For example, it appears that obesity could predict low vitamin D levels (not necessarily a deficiency). In turn, these low levels could cause obesity, especially during embryonic development, when programming of adipocyte physiology is taking place.”

Dr. Bretón sees many confounding factors that will need to be elucidated in the future. “One factor is that we aren’t sure whether the patient we’re seeing has vitamin D deficiency or if other factors are in play, like time since weight loss, laboratory technique used to measure vitamin D, nutritional status, geographic location, time of year when the test is performed, et cetera. You also have to assess other factors having to do with obesity, like how adiposity is being measured and whether BMI reflects that adiposity.”

Last, the expert reviewed the major research efforts underway that are based on evidence that vitamin D is associated with insulin resistance. Studies are being performed on pancreatic function, the role of vitamin D levels in ovarian physiology related to insulin resistance (specifically, the role of hyperandrogenism), adipose tissue (vitamin D receptor expression, volumetric dilution), and other components of metabolic syndrome to determine how this vitamin’s status influences the renin-angiotensin system, apoptosis, and cardiovascular risk.

“There is also plenty of research going on surrounding metabolic liver disease, which has a lot to do with the microbiota. So, they’re studying the relationship between vitamin D and dysbiosis, especially regarding local immunomodulation in the gut in relation to the microbiota,” she added.

Another area of research is cancer, focusing primarily on analyzing the nutritional status of vitamin D in relation to the microbiome and how this status may affect the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. “It would be interesting to find out whether the effect of immunotherapy varies depending on the patient’s vitamin D status,” concluded Dr. Bretón.

Dr. Bretón’s lecture at the 64th Congress of the SEEN was sponsored by the Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies (FAES).

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition.  A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early childhood trauma alters brain function in adults, according to new research.

In a meta-analysis of 83 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that included more than 5000 patients, exposure to adversity was associated with higher amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity across a range of task domains. 

The altered responses were only observed in studies including adult participants and were clearest in participants who had been exposed to severe threat and trauma. Children and adolescents did not show significant adversity-related differences in brain function.

“By integrating the results from 83 previous brain imaging studies, we were able to provide what is arguably the clearest evidence to date that adults who have been exposed to early life trauma have different brain responses to psychological challenges,” senior author Marco Leyton, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Temperament Adversity Biology Lab at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, said in a press release. “This includes exaggerated responses in a region that processes emotionally intense information (the amygdala) and reduced responses in a region that helps people regulate emotions and associated behaviors (the frontal cortex).”

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Changes in Reactivity 

“One big issue we have in psychology, and especially in neuroscience, is that single-study results are often not reproducible,” lead author Niki Hosseini-Kamkar, PhD, neuroimaging research associate at Atlas Institute for Veterans and Families at Royal Ottawa Hospital, said in an interview.

“It was very important to me to use a meta-analysis to get an overall picture of what brain regions are consistently reported across all these different studies. That is what we did here,” she added. Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar conducted this analysis while she was a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University in Montreal.

She and her group examined adversity exposure and brain function in the following four domains of task-based fMRI: emotion processing, memory processing, inhibitory control, and reward processing. Their study included 5242 participants. The researchers used multilevel kernel density analyses (MKDA) to analyze the data more accurately. 

Adversity exposure was associated with higher amygdala reactivity (P < .001) and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity (P < .001), compared with controls with no adversity exposure.

Threat types of adversity were associated with greater blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses in the superior temporal gyrus and lower prefrontal cortex activity in participants exposed to threat, compared with controls. 

Analysis of studies of inhibitory control tasks found greater activity in the claustrum, anterior cingulate cortex, and insula in the adversity-exposed participants, compared with controls.

In addition, studies that administered emotion processing tasks showed greater amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortex (superior frontal gyrus) reactivity in the adversity exposure group, compared with controls.

“The main takeaway is that there’s an exaggerated activity in the amygdala, and diminished prefrontal cortex activity, and together, this might point to a mechanism for how a history of adversity diminishes the ability to cope with later stressors and can therefore heighten susceptibility to mental illness,” said Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar.
 

‘Important Next Step’ 

“Overall, the meta-analysis by Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar and colleagues represents an important next step in understanding associations of adversity exposure with brain function while highlighting the importance of considering the role of development,” wrote Dylan G. Gee, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Alexis Brieant, PhD, assistant professor of research or creative works at the University of Vermont in Burlington, in an accompanying commentary. 

They also applauded the authors for their use of MKDA. They noted that the technique “allows inferences about the consistency and specificity of brain activation across studies and is thought to be more robust to small sample sizes than activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis.” 

Dr. Gee and Dr. Brieant also observed that a recent ALE meta-analysis failed to find a link between adversity and brain function. “Although it is important to note that the file drawer problem — by which researchers are less likely to publish null results — presents challenges to the inferences that can be drawn in the current work, the current study may provide complementary information to prior ALE meta-analyses.” 
 

Epigenetic Changes? 

Commenting on the findings for this article, Victor Fornari, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, New York, said, “Historically, when someone went through a traumatic event, they were told to just get over it, because somehow trauma doesn’t have a lasting impact on the brain.” Dr. Fornari was not involved in the research.

“We have certainly learned so much more over the past decade about early adversity and that it does have a profound impact on the brain and probably even epigenetic changes in our genes,” Dr. Fornari said.

“This is a very important avenue of investigation. People are really trying to understand if there are biological markers that we can actually measure in the brain that will offer us a window to better understand the consequence of adversity, as well as possible avenues of treatment.” 

No funding source for this study was reported. Dr. Leyton, Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar, and Dr. Fornari report no relevant financial relationships. Gee reports receiving grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Brieant reports receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health outside the submitted work. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early childhood trauma alters brain function in adults, according to new research.

In a meta-analysis of 83 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that included more than 5000 patients, exposure to adversity was associated with higher amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity across a range of task domains. 

The altered responses were only observed in studies including adult participants and were clearest in participants who had been exposed to severe threat and trauma. Children and adolescents did not show significant adversity-related differences in brain function.

“By integrating the results from 83 previous brain imaging studies, we were able to provide what is arguably the clearest evidence to date that adults who have been exposed to early life trauma have different brain responses to psychological challenges,” senior author Marco Leyton, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Temperament Adversity Biology Lab at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, said in a press release. “This includes exaggerated responses in a region that processes emotionally intense information (the amygdala) and reduced responses in a region that helps people regulate emotions and associated behaviors (the frontal cortex).”

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Changes in Reactivity 

“One big issue we have in psychology, and especially in neuroscience, is that single-study results are often not reproducible,” lead author Niki Hosseini-Kamkar, PhD, neuroimaging research associate at Atlas Institute for Veterans and Families at Royal Ottawa Hospital, said in an interview.

“It was very important to me to use a meta-analysis to get an overall picture of what brain regions are consistently reported across all these different studies. That is what we did here,” she added. Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar conducted this analysis while she was a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University in Montreal.

She and her group examined adversity exposure and brain function in the following four domains of task-based fMRI: emotion processing, memory processing, inhibitory control, and reward processing. Their study included 5242 participants. The researchers used multilevel kernel density analyses (MKDA) to analyze the data more accurately. 

Adversity exposure was associated with higher amygdala reactivity (P < .001) and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity (P < .001), compared with controls with no adversity exposure.

Threat types of adversity were associated with greater blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses in the superior temporal gyrus and lower prefrontal cortex activity in participants exposed to threat, compared with controls. 

Analysis of studies of inhibitory control tasks found greater activity in the claustrum, anterior cingulate cortex, and insula in the adversity-exposed participants, compared with controls.

In addition, studies that administered emotion processing tasks showed greater amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortex (superior frontal gyrus) reactivity in the adversity exposure group, compared with controls.

“The main takeaway is that there’s an exaggerated activity in the amygdala, and diminished prefrontal cortex activity, and together, this might point to a mechanism for how a history of adversity diminishes the ability to cope with later stressors and can therefore heighten susceptibility to mental illness,” said Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar.
 

‘Important Next Step’ 

“Overall, the meta-analysis by Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar and colleagues represents an important next step in understanding associations of adversity exposure with brain function while highlighting the importance of considering the role of development,” wrote Dylan G. Gee, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Alexis Brieant, PhD, assistant professor of research or creative works at the University of Vermont in Burlington, in an accompanying commentary. 

They also applauded the authors for their use of MKDA. They noted that the technique “allows inferences about the consistency and specificity of brain activation across studies and is thought to be more robust to small sample sizes than activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis.” 

Dr. Gee and Dr. Brieant also observed that a recent ALE meta-analysis failed to find a link between adversity and brain function. “Although it is important to note that the file drawer problem — by which researchers are less likely to publish null results — presents challenges to the inferences that can be drawn in the current work, the current study may provide complementary information to prior ALE meta-analyses.” 
 

Epigenetic Changes? 

Commenting on the findings for this article, Victor Fornari, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, New York, said, “Historically, when someone went through a traumatic event, they were told to just get over it, because somehow trauma doesn’t have a lasting impact on the brain.” Dr. Fornari was not involved in the research.

“We have certainly learned so much more over the past decade about early adversity and that it does have a profound impact on the brain and probably even epigenetic changes in our genes,” Dr. Fornari said.

“This is a very important avenue of investigation. People are really trying to understand if there are biological markers that we can actually measure in the brain that will offer us a window to better understand the consequence of adversity, as well as possible avenues of treatment.” 

No funding source for this study was reported. Dr. Leyton, Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar, and Dr. Fornari report no relevant financial relationships. Gee reports receiving grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Brieant reports receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health outside the submitted work. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early childhood trauma alters brain function in adults, according to new research.

In a meta-analysis of 83 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that included more than 5000 patients, exposure to adversity was associated with higher amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity across a range of task domains. 

The altered responses were only observed in studies including adult participants and were clearest in participants who had been exposed to severe threat and trauma. Children and adolescents did not show significant adversity-related differences in brain function.

“By integrating the results from 83 previous brain imaging studies, we were able to provide what is arguably the clearest evidence to date that adults who have been exposed to early life trauma have different brain responses to psychological challenges,” senior author Marco Leyton, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Temperament Adversity Biology Lab at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, said in a press release. “This includes exaggerated responses in a region that processes emotionally intense information (the amygdala) and reduced responses in a region that helps people regulate emotions and associated behaviors (the frontal cortex).”

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Changes in Reactivity 

“One big issue we have in psychology, and especially in neuroscience, is that single-study results are often not reproducible,” lead author Niki Hosseini-Kamkar, PhD, neuroimaging research associate at Atlas Institute for Veterans and Families at Royal Ottawa Hospital, said in an interview.

“It was very important to me to use a meta-analysis to get an overall picture of what brain regions are consistently reported across all these different studies. That is what we did here,” she added. Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar conducted this analysis while she was a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University in Montreal.

She and her group examined adversity exposure and brain function in the following four domains of task-based fMRI: emotion processing, memory processing, inhibitory control, and reward processing. Their study included 5242 participants. The researchers used multilevel kernel density analyses (MKDA) to analyze the data more accurately. 

Adversity exposure was associated with higher amygdala reactivity (P < .001) and lower prefrontal cortical reactivity (P < .001), compared with controls with no adversity exposure.

Threat types of adversity were associated with greater blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses in the superior temporal gyrus and lower prefrontal cortex activity in participants exposed to threat, compared with controls. 

Analysis of studies of inhibitory control tasks found greater activity in the claustrum, anterior cingulate cortex, and insula in the adversity-exposed participants, compared with controls.

In addition, studies that administered emotion processing tasks showed greater amygdala reactivity and lower prefrontal cortex (superior frontal gyrus) reactivity in the adversity exposure group, compared with controls.

“The main takeaway is that there’s an exaggerated activity in the amygdala, and diminished prefrontal cortex activity, and together, this might point to a mechanism for how a history of adversity diminishes the ability to cope with later stressors and can therefore heighten susceptibility to mental illness,” said Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar.
 

‘Important Next Step’ 

“Overall, the meta-analysis by Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar and colleagues represents an important next step in understanding associations of adversity exposure with brain function while highlighting the importance of considering the role of development,” wrote Dylan G. Gee, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Alexis Brieant, PhD, assistant professor of research or creative works at the University of Vermont in Burlington, in an accompanying commentary. 

They also applauded the authors for their use of MKDA. They noted that the technique “allows inferences about the consistency and specificity of brain activation across studies and is thought to be more robust to small sample sizes than activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis.” 

Dr. Gee and Dr. Brieant also observed that a recent ALE meta-analysis failed to find a link between adversity and brain function. “Although it is important to note that the file drawer problem — by which researchers are less likely to publish null results — presents challenges to the inferences that can be drawn in the current work, the current study may provide complementary information to prior ALE meta-analyses.” 
 

Epigenetic Changes? 

Commenting on the findings for this article, Victor Fornari, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, New York, said, “Historically, when someone went through a traumatic event, they were told to just get over it, because somehow trauma doesn’t have a lasting impact on the brain.” Dr. Fornari was not involved in the research.

“We have certainly learned so much more over the past decade about early adversity and that it does have a profound impact on the brain and probably even epigenetic changes in our genes,” Dr. Fornari said.

“This is a very important avenue of investigation. People are really trying to understand if there are biological markers that we can actually measure in the brain that will offer us a window to better understand the consequence of adversity, as well as possible avenues of treatment.” 

No funding source for this study was reported. Dr. Leyton, Dr. Hosseini-Kamkar, and Dr. Fornari report no relevant financial relationships. Gee reports receiving grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Brieant reports receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health outside the submitted work. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Women 65-70 years old are often offered the option of skipping radiation after lumpectomy for hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer and moving straight to endocrine therapy.

The recurrence rate with and without radiation is well known so women can be counseled accurately about their options. For some, the 10% risk of recurrence at 10 years without radiation seems reasonable, for others it does not.

Omitting radiation for older postmenopausal women is “very reasonable to offer so long as they are willing to accept the risk,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, chief of radiation oncology at Emory University, Atlanta.

The option, however, isn’t generally offered to postmenopausal women younger than 65 years old because their risk from skipping adjuvant radiation isn’t known, but that’s about to change.

Several teams are investigating the issue, including one led by Dr. Jagsi, who presented her and her colleagues’ latest results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In the single-arm IDEA [Individualized Decisions for Endocrine therapy Alone] study, 200 women 50-69 years old with pT1N0 unifocal hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer agreed to the approach when it was offered to them following lumpectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy. The mean tumor size was 10 mm with margins of at least 2 mm.

The women were at low risk for recurrence, with recurrence risk scores no higher than 18 points on the Oncotype DX 21-gene assay; the mean score was 11 points.

Radiation would have been the usual next step after lumpectomy, but instead the patients went directly to endocrine therapy for 5 years, with adherence above 80%.

At 5 years, the results are “promising,” Dr. Jagsi said at the meeting. Overall and breast cancer–specific survival were both 100%, and the recurrence rate was just 1%, with two recurrences before the 5-year point. The women were a mean of 62 years old.

A similar single-arm trial, LUMINA, recently reported comparable results.

Dr. Jagsi called the findings of the studies “reassuring,” but cautioned that it will be a while before younger postmenopausal women can be offered radiation-free treatment like their older peers.

Even though the results suggest “that this might well be a really good idea,” longer follow-up and randomized data are needed “before we change the standard of care,” she said.

Of concern, for instance, is that there were six additional recurrences in the IDEA study past the 5-year mark, for a total of three recurrences among the 60 women 50-59 years old (5%) and five among the 140 women 60-69 years old (3.6%). Five of the recurrent cases were adherent to endocrine therapy.

Also, so few women in IDEA have passed the 5-year mark that “we can’t [conclude] anything” about long-term relapse risks, Dr. Jagsi said. Besides that, skipping radiation for such women at this point is “not reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi added.

Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of the UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, agreed.

“I think we have to wait. We have randomized studies that will test this in a formal way. Be that as it may, this provides the basis for a conversation physicians can have with patients because this could be an option” at some point, said Dr. Arteaga, who moderated Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

“This is a big step in trying not to do too much for patients who don’t need it,” Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio, said in an interview.

IDEA was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to coincide with Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

The study was funded by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. Dr. Jagsi has stock in Equity Quotient and research support form Genentech. Disclosure information for Arteaga was not available. Dr. Kaklamani has extensive industry ties, including being a speaker for Pfizer, Genentech, Novartis, and AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Women 65-70 years old are often offered the option of skipping radiation after lumpectomy for hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer and moving straight to endocrine therapy.

The recurrence rate with and without radiation is well known so women can be counseled accurately about their options. For some, the 10% risk of recurrence at 10 years without radiation seems reasonable, for others it does not.

Omitting radiation for older postmenopausal women is “very reasonable to offer so long as they are willing to accept the risk,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, chief of radiation oncology at Emory University, Atlanta.

The option, however, isn’t generally offered to postmenopausal women younger than 65 years old because their risk from skipping adjuvant radiation isn’t known, but that’s about to change.

Several teams are investigating the issue, including one led by Dr. Jagsi, who presented her and her colleagues’ latest results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In the single-arm IDEA [Individualized Decisions for Endocrine therapy Alone] study, 200 women 50-69 years old with pT1N0 unifocal hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer agreed to the approach when it was offered to them following lumpectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy. The mean tumor size was 10 mm with margins of at least 2 mm.

The women were at low risk for recurrence, with recurrence risk scores no higher than 18 points on the Oncotype DX 21-gene assay; the mean score was 11 points.

Radiation would have been the usual next step after lumpectomy, but instead the patients went directly to endocrine therapy for 5 years, with adherence above 80%.

At 5 years, the results are “promising,” Dr. Jagsi said at the meeting. Overall and breast cancer–specific survival were both 100%, and the recurrence rate was just 1%, with two recurrences before the 5-year point. The women were a mean of 62 years old.

A similar single-arm trial, LUMINA, recently reported comparable results.

Dr. Jagsi called the findings of the studies “reassuring,” but cautioned that it will be a while before younger postmenopausal women can be offered radiation-free treatment like their older peers.

Even though the results suggest “that this might well be a really good idea,” longer follow-up and randomized data are needed “before we change the standard of care,” she said.

Of concern, for instance, is that there were six additional recurrences in the IDEA study past the 5-year mark, for a total of three recurrences among the 60 women 50-59 years old (5%) and five among the 140 women 60-69 years old (3.6%). Five of the recurrent cases were adherent to endocrine therapy.

Also, so few women in IDEA have passed the 5-year mark that “we can’t [conclude] anything” about long-term relapse risks, Dr. Jagsi said. Besides that, skipping radiation for such women at this point is “not reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi added.

Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of the UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, agreed.

“I think we have to wait. We have randomized studies that will test this in a formal way. Be that as it may, this provides the basis for a conversation physicians can have with patients because this could be an option” at some point, said Dr. Arteaga, who moderated Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

“This is a big step in trying not to do too much for patients who don’t need it,” Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio, said in an interview.

IDEA was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to coincide with Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

The study was funded by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. Dr. Jagsi has stock in Equity Quotient and research support form Genentech. Disclosure information for Arteaga was not available. Dr. Kaklamani has extensive industry ties, including being a speaker for Pfizer, Genentech, Novartis, and AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Women 65-70 years old are often offered the option of skipping radiation after lumpectomy for hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer and moving straight to endocrine therapy.

The recurrence rate with and without radiation is well known so women can be counseled accurately about their options. For some, the 10% risk of recurrence at 10 years without radiation seems reasonable, for others it does not.

Omitting radiation for older postmenopausal women is “very reasonable to offer so long as they are willing to accept the risk,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, chief of radiation oncology at Emory University, Atlanta.

The option, however, isn’t generally offered to postmenopausal women younger than 65 years old because their risk from skipping adjuvant radiation isn’t known, but that’s about to change.

Several teams are investigating the issue, including one led by Dr. Jagsi, who presented her and her colleagues’ latest results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In the single-arm IDEA [Individualized Decisions for Endocrine therapy Alone] study, 200 women 50-69 years old with pT1N0 unifocal hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer agreed to the approach when it was offered to them following lumpectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy. The mean tumor size was 10 mm with margins of at least 2 mm.

The women were at low risk for recurrence, with recurrence risk scores no higher than 18 points on the Oncotype DX 21-gene assay; the mean score was 11 points.

Radiation would have been the usual next step after lumpectomy, but instead the patients went directly to endocrine therapy for 5 years, with adherence above 80%.

At 5 years, the results are “promising,” Dr. Jagsi said at the meeting. Overall and breast cancer–specific survival were both 100%, and the recurrence rate was just 1%, with two recurrences before the 5-year point. The women were a mean of 62 years old.

A similar single-arm trial, LUMINA, recently reported comparable results.

Dr. Jagsi called the findings of the studies “reassuring,” but cautioned that it will be a while before younger postmenopausal women can be offered radiation-free treatment like their older peers.

Even though the results suggest “that this might well be a really good idea,” longer follow-up and randomized data are needed “before we change the standard of care,” she said.

Of concern, for instance, is that there were six additional recurrences in the IDEA study past the 5-year mark, for a total of three recurrences among the 60 women 50-59 years old (5%) and five among the 140 women 60-69 years old (3.6%). Five of the recurrent cases were adherent to endocrine therapy.

Also, so few women in IDEA have passed the 5-year mark that “we can’t [conclude] anything” about long-term relapse risks, Dr. Jagsi said. Besides that, skipping radiation for such women at this point is “not reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi added.

Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of the UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, agreed.

“I think we have to wait. We have randomized studies that will test this in a formal way. Be that as it may, this provides the basis for a conversation physicians can have with patients because this could be an option” at some point, said Dr. Arteaga, who moderated Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

“This is a big step in trying not to do too much for patients who don’t need it,” Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio, said in an interview.

IDEA was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to coincide with Dr. Jagsi’s presentation.

The study was funded by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. Dr. Jagsi has stock in Equity Quotient and research support form Genentech. Disclosure information for Arteaga was not available. Dr. Kaklamani has extensive industry ties, including being a speaker for Pfizer, Genentech, Novartis, and AstraZeneca.

The proposal by the major cardiovascular societies in the US to form a new board of cardiovascular medicine to manage initial and ongoing certification of cardiologists represents something of a revolution in the field of continuing medical education and assessment of competency. 

Five US cardiovascular societies — the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) — have now joined forces to propose a new professional certification board for cardiovascular medicine, to be known as the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM). 

The ABCVM would be independent of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), the current organization providing maintenance of certification for cardiologists as well as many other internal medicine subspecialties. The ABIM’s maintenance of certification process has been widely criticized for many years and has been described as “needlessly burdensome and expensive.” 

The ABCVM is hoping to offer a more appropriate and supportive approach, according to Jeffrey Kuvin, MD, a trustee of the ACC, who has been heading up the working group to develop this plan. 

Dr. Kuvin, who is chair of the cardiology at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York, a large academic healthcare system, explained that maintenance of certification has been a topic of discussion across the cardiovascular community for many years, and the ACC has a working group focused on the next steps for evaluation of competency, which he chairs.

“The topic of evaluation of competence has been on the mind of the ACC for many years and hence a work group was developed to focus on this,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “A lot of evolution of the concepts and next steps have been drawn out of this working group. And now other cardiovascular societies have joined to show unification across the house of cardiology and that this is indeed the way that the cardiovascular profession should move.” 
 

“Time to Separate from Internal Medicine”

The general concept behind the new cardiology board is to separate cardiology from the ABIM. 

“This is rooted from the concept that cardiology has evolved so much over the last few decades into such a large multidimensional specialty that it really does demarcate itself from internal medicine, and as such, it deserves a separate board governed by cardiologists with collaboration across the entirely of cardiology,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

Cardiology has had significant growth and expansion of technology, tools, medications, and the approach to patients in many specialities and subspecialties, he added. “We have defined training programs in many different areas within cardiology; we have our own guidelines, our own competency statements, and in many cases, cardiology exists as its own department outside of medicine in many institutions. It’s just time to separate cardiology from the umbrella of internal medicine.” 

The new cardiology board would be separate from, and not report to, the ABIM; rather, it would report directly to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the only recognized medical certification body in the US. 
 

What Are the Proposed Changes

Under the present system, managed by the ABIM, clinicians must undergo two stages of certification to be a cardiologist. First, they have to pass the initial certification exam in general cardiology, and then exams in one of four subspecialties if they plan to enter one of these, including interventional cardiology, electrophysiology, advanced heart failure or adult congenital heart disease. 

Next, clinicians enter the maintenance of certification phase, which can take three different forms: 1) taking another recertification exam every 10 years; 2) the collaborative maintenance pathway — a collaboration between ACC and ABIM, which includes evaluation, learning and a certified exam each year; or 3) longitudinal knowledge and assessment — in which the program interacts with the clinician on an ongoing basis, sending secured questions regularly. 

All three of these pathways for maintenance of certification involve high stakes questions and a set bar for passing or failing. 

Under the proposed new cardiology board, an initial certification exam would still be required after fellowship training, but the maintenance of certification process would be completely restructured, with the new approach taking the form of continuous learning and assessment of competency. 

“This is an iterative process, but we envision with a new American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine, we will pick up where the ABIM left off,” Dr. Kuvin notes. “That includes an initial certifying examination for the five areas that already exist under the ABIM system but with the opportunities to expand that to further specialties as well.”

He points out that there are several areas in cardiology that are currently not represented by these five areas that warrant some discussion, including multimodality imaging, vascular heart disease, and cardio-oncology. 

“At present, everybody has to pass the general cardiology exam and then some may wish to further train and get certified in one of the other four other specific areas. But one topic that has been discussed over many years is how do we maintain competency in the areas in which clinicians practice over their lifetime as a cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin commented. 

He said the proposed cardiology board would like to adhere to some basic principles that are fundamental to the practice of medicine. 

“We want to make sure that we are practicing medicine so that our patients derive the most benefit from seeing a cardiologist,” he said. “We also want to make sure, however, that this is a supportive process, supporting cardiologists to learn what they know and more importantly what they don’t know; to identify knowledge gaps in specific area; to help the cardiologist fill those knowledge gaps; to acknowledge those gaps have been filled; and then move on to another area of interest. This will be the focus of this new and improved model of continuous competency.”

The proposed new board also says it wants to make sure this is appropriate to the area in which the clinician is practicing.

“To take a closed book certified exam every 10 years on the world of cardiology as happens at the current time – or the assessments conducted in the other two pathways – is often meaningless to the cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin says. “All three current pathways involve high stakes questions that are often irrelevant to one’s clinical practice.” 
 

Lifelong Learning

“The crux of the changes we are proposing will be away from the focus of passing a test towards a model of helping the individual with their competency, with continuous learning and evaluation of competency to help the clinician fill in their knowledge gaps,” he explains.

He described the new approach as “lifelong learning,” adding that, instead of it being “a punitive pass/fail environment with no feedback, which causes a lot of discontent among clinicians,” it will be a supportive process, where a clinician will be helped in filling their knowledge gaps. 

“I think this would be a welcome change not just for cardiology but across medical specialties,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

He also pointed out the ABMS itself is considering a continuous competency approach, and the proposed new cardiology board aims to work with the ABMS to make sure that their goals of continuous competency assessment are matched. 

“The world has changed. The ability to access information has changed. It is no longer imperative for a clinician to have every piece of knowledge in their brain, but rather to know how to get knowledge and to incorporate that knowledge into clinical practice,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “Competency should not involve knowledge alone as in a closed book exam. It is more about understanding the world that we live in, how to synthesize information, where we need to improve knowledge and how to do that.” 

Dr. Kuvin acknowledged that asking clinicians questions is a very helpful tool to identify their knowledge base and their knowledge gaps. “But we believe the clinician needs to be given resources — that could be a conference, an article, a simulation — to fill that knowledge gap. Then we could ask clinicians some different questions and if they get those right then we have provided a service.” 

Tactile skills for cardiologists needing to perform procedures – such as interventionalists or electrophysiologists may be incorporated by simulation in a technology-based scenario.

On how often these assessments would take place, Dr. Kuvin said that hadn’t been decided for sure. 

“We certainly do not think an assessment every 10 years is appropriate. We envision, instead of an episodic model, it will be rather a lifelong journey of education and competency. This will involve frequent contact and making sure knowledge gaps are being filled. There are criteria being set out by the ABMS that there should be a certain number of touch points with individuals on an annual as well as a 5-year basis to make sure cardiologists are staying within specific guardrails. The exact nature of these is yet to be determined,” he said. 

Dr. Kuvin added that it was not known yet what sort of hours would be required but added that “this will not be a significant time burden.”
 

What is the Timeframe?

The application to the ABMS for a separate cardiology board is still ongoing and has not yet received formal acceptance. Representatives from the five US cardiovascular societies are in the initial stages of formulating a transition board. 

“The submission to the ABMS will take time for them to review. This could take up to a year or so,” Dr. Kuvin estimates. 

This is the first time the ABMS has entertained the concept of a new board in many years, he noted. “It will be a paradigm shift for the whole country. I think that cardiology is really at the forefront and in a position where we can actually do this. If cardiovascular medicine is granted a new board, I think this will help change the approach of how physicians are assessed in terms of continuous competency not just in cardiology but across all specialties of medicine.”

He added: “We are confident that we can work within the construct of the ABMS guidelines that have been revised to be much more holistic in the approach of continuous competence across the board. This includes thinking beyond rote medical knowledge and thinking about the clinician as a whole and their abilities to communicate, act professionally, work within a complex medical system, utilize medical resources effectively. These all have to be part of continuous competence.”
 

How Much Will This Cost?

Noting that the ABIM has received criticism over the costs of the certification process, Dr. Kuvin said they intend to make this “as lean a machine as possible with the focus on reducing the financial [burden] as well as the time burden for cardiologists. It is very important that this is not cumbersome, that it is woven into clinical practice, and that it is not costly.” 

But he pointed out that building a new board will have significant costs. 

“We have to think about developing initial board certification examinations as well as changing the paradigm on continuous certification,” he said. “This will take some up-front costs, and our society partners have decided that they are willing to provide some start-up funds for this. We anticipate the initial certification will remain somewhat similar in price, but the cost of ongoing continuous competency assessment will be significantly reduced compared to today’s models.”

Dr. Kuvin said the collaboration of the five participating US cardiovascular societies was unprecedented. But he noted that while the transition board is beginning with representatives of these individual societies, it will ultimately be independent from these societies and have its own board of directors. 

He suggested that other societies representing other parts of cardiology are also interested. “Cardiology has recognized how important this is,” he said. “Everybody is excited about this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The proposal by the major cardiovascular societies in the US to form a new board of cardiovascular medicine to manage initial and ongoing certification of cardiologists represents something of a revolution in the field of continuing medical education and assessment of competency. 

Five US cardiovascular societies — the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) — have now joined forces to propose a new professional certification board for cardiovascular medicine, to be known as the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM). 

The ABCVM would be independent of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), the current organization providing maintenance of certification for cardiologists as well as many other internal medicine subspecialties. The ABIM’s maintenance of certification process has been widely criticized for many years and has been described as “needlessly burdensome and expensive.” 

The ABCVM is hoping to offer a more appropriate and supportive approach, according to Jeffrey Kuvin, MD, a trustee of the ACC, who has been heading up the working group to develop this plan. 

Dr. Kuvin, who is chair of the cardiology at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York, a large academic healthcare system, explained that maintenance of certification has been a topic of discussion across the cardiovascular community for many years, and the ACC has a working group focused on the next steps for evaluation of competency, which he chairs.

“The topic of evaluation of competence has been on the mind of the ACC for many years and hence a work group was developed to focus on this,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “A lot of evolution of the concepts and next steps have been drawn out of this working group. And now other cardiovascular societies have joined to show unification across the house of cardiology and that this is indeed the way that the cardiovascular profession should move.” 
 

“Time to Separate from Internal Medicine”

The general concept behind the new cardiology board is to separate cardiology from the ABIM. 

“This is rooted from the concept that cardiology has evolved so much over the last few decades into such a large multidimensional specialty that it really does demarcate itself from internal medicine, and as such, it deserves a separate board governed by cardiologists with collaboration across the entirely of cardiology,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

Cardiology has had significant growth and expansion of technology, tools, medications, and the approach to patients in many specialities and subspecialties, he added. “We have defined training programs in many different areas within cardiology; we have our own guidelines, our own competency statements, and in many cases, cardiology exists as its own department outside of medicine in many institutions. It’s just time to separate cardiology from the umbrella of internal medicine.” 

The new cardiology board would be separate from, and not report to, the ABIM; rather, it would report directly to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the only recognized medical certification body in the US. 
 

What Are the Proposed Changes

Under the present system, managed by the ABIM, clinicians must undergo two stages of certification to be a cardiologist. First, they have to pass the initial certification exam in general cardiology, and then exams in one of four subspecialties if they plan to enter one of these, including interventional cardiology, electrophysiology, advanced heart failure or adult congenital heart disease. 

Next, clinicians enter the maintenance of certification phase, which can take three different forms: 1) taking another recertification exam every 10 years; 2) the collaborative maintenance pathway — a collaboration between ACC and ABIM, which includes evaluation, learning and a certified exam each year; or 3) longitudinal knowledge and assessment — in which the program interacts with the clinician on an ongoing basis, sending secured questions regularly. 

All three of these pathways for maintenance of certification involve high stakes questions and a set bar for passing or failing. 

Under the proposed new cardiology board, an initial certification exam would still be required after fellowship training, but the maintenance of certification process would be completely restructured, with the new approach taking the form of continuous learning and assessment of competency. 

“This is an iterative process, but we envision with a new American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine, we will pick up where the ABIM left off,” Dr. Kuvin notes. “That includes an initial certifying examination for the five areas that already exist under the ABIM system but with the opportunities to expand that to further specialties as well.”

He points out that there are several areas in cardiology that are currently not represented by these five areas that warrant some discussion, including multimodality imaging, vascular heart disease, and cardio-oncology. 

“At present, everybody has to pass the general cardiology exam and then some may wish to further train and get certified in one of the other four other specific areas. But one topic that has been discussed over many years is how do we maintain competency in the areas in which clinicians practice over their lifetime as a cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin commented. 

He said the proposed cardiology board would like to adhere to some basic principles that are fundamental to the practice of medicine. 

“We want to make sure that we are practicing medicine so that our patients derive the most benefit from seeing a cardiologist,” he said. “We also want to make sure, however, that this is a supportive process, supporting cardiologists to learn what they know and more importantly what they don’t know; to identify knowledge gaps in specific area; to help the cardiologist fill those knowledge gaps; to acknowledge those gaps have been filled; and then move on to another area of interest. This will be the focus of this new and improved model of continuous competency.”

The proposed new board also says it wants to make sure this is appropriate to the area in which the clinician is practicing.

“To take a closed book certified exam every 10 years on the world of cardiology as happens at the current time – or the assessments conducted in the other two pathways – is often meaningless to the cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin says. “All three current pathways involve high stakes questions that are often irrelevant to one’s clinical practice.” 
 

Lifelong Learning

“The crux of the changes we are proposing will be away from the focus of passing a test towards a model of helping the individual with their competency, with continuous learning and evaluation of competency to help the clinician fill in their knowledge gaps,” he explains.

He described the new approach as “lifelong learning,” adding that, instead of it being “a punitive pass/fail environment with no feedback, which causes a lot of discontent among clinicians,” it will be a supportive process, where a clinician will be helped in filling their knowledge gaps. 

“I think this would be a welcome change not just for cardiology but across medical specialties,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

He also pointed out the ABMS itself is considering a continuous competency approach, and the proposed new cardiology board aims to work with the ABMS to make sure that their goals of continuous competency assessment are matched. 

“The world has changed. The ability to access information has changed. It is no longer imperative for a clinician to have every piece of knowledge in their brain, but rather to know how to get knowledge and to incorporate that knowledge into clinical practice,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “Competency should not involve knowledge alone as in a closed book exam. It is more about understanding the world that we live in, how to synthesize information, where we need to improve knowledge and how to do that.” 

Dr. Kuvin acknowledged that asking clinicians questions is a very helpful tool to identify their knowledge base and their knowledge gaps. “But we believe the clinician needs to be given resources — that could be a conference, an article, a simulation — to fill that knowledge gap. Then we could ask clinicians some different questions and if they get those right then we have provided a service.” 

Tactile skills for cardiologists needing to perform procedures – such as interventionalists or electrophysiologists may be incorporated by simulation in a technology-based scenario.

On how often these assessments would take place, Dr. Kuvin said that hadn’t been decided for sure. 

“We certainly do not think an assessment every 10 years is appropriate. We envision, instead of an episodic model, it will be rather a lifelong journey of education and competency. This will involve frequent contact and making sure knowledge gaps are being filled. There are criteria being set out by the ABMS that there should be a certain number of touch points with individuals on an annual as well as a 5-year basis to make sure cardiologists are staying within specific guardrails. The exact nature of these is yet to be determined,” he said. 

Dr. Kuvin added that it was not known yet what sort of hours would be required but added that “this will not be a significant time burden.”
 

What is the Timeframe?

The application to the ABMS for a separate cardiology board is still ongoing and has not yet received formal acceptance. Representatives from the five US cardiovascular societies are in the initial stages of formulating a transition board. 

“The submission to the ABMS will take time for them to review. This could take up to a year or so,” Dr. Kuvin estimates. 

This is the first time the ABMS has entertained the concept of a new board in many years, he noted. “It will be a paradigm shift for the whole country. I think that cardiology is really at the forefront and in a position where we can actually do this. If cardiovascular medicine is granted a new board, I think this will help change the approach of how physicians are assessed in terms of continuous competency not just in cardiology but across all specialties of medicine.”

He added: “We are confident that we can work within the construct of the ABMS guidelines that have been revised to be much more holistic in the approach of continuous competence across the board. This includes thinking beyond rote medical knowledge and thinking about the clinician as a whole and their abilities to communicate, act professionally, work within a complex medical system, utilize medical resources effectively. These all have to be part of continuous competence.”
 

How Much Will This Cost?

Noting that the ABIM has received criticism over the costs of the certification process, Dr. Kuvin said they intend to make this “as lean a machine as possible with the focus on reducing the financial [burden] as well as the time burden for cardiologists. It is very important that this is not cumbersome, that it is woven into clinical practice, and that it is not costly.” 

But he pointed out that building a new board will have significant costs. 

“We have to think about developing initial board certification examinations as well as changing the paradigm on continuous certification,” he said. “This will take some up-front costs, and our society partners have decided that they are willing to provide some start-up funds for this. We anticipate the initial certification will remain somewhat similar in price, but the cost of ongoing continuous competency assessment will be significantly reduced compared to today’s models.”

Dr. Kuvin said the collaboration of the five participating US cardiovascular societies was unprecedented. But he noted that while the transition board is beginning with representatives of these individual societies, it will ultimately be independent from these societies and have its own board of directors. 

He suggested that other societies representing other parts of cardiology are also interested. “Cardiology has recognized how important this is,” he said. “Everybody is excited about this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The proposal by the major cardiovascular societies in the US to form a new board of cardiovascular medicine to manage initial and ongoing certification of cardiologists represents something of a revolution in the field of continuing medical education and assessment of competency. 

Five US cardiovascular societies — the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) — have now joined forces to propose a new professional certification board for cardiovascular medicine, to be known as the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM). 

The ABCVM would be independent of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), the current organization providing maintenance of certification for cardiologists as well as many other internal medicine subspecialties. The ABIM’s maintenance of certification process has been widely criticized for many years and has been described as “needlessly burdensome and expensive.” 

The ABCVM is hoping to offer a more appropriate and supportive approach, according to Jeffrey Kuvin, MD, a trustee of the ACC, who has been heading up the working group to develop this plan. 

Dr. Kuvin, who is chair of the cardiology at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York, a large academic healthcare system, explained that maintenance of certification has been a topic of discussion across the cardiovascular community for many years, and the ACC has a working group focused on the next steps for evaluation of competency, which he chairs.

“The topic of evaluation of competence has been on the mind of the ACC for many years and hence a work group was developed to focus on this,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “A lot of evolution of the concepts and next steps have been drawn out of this working group. And now other cardiovascular societies have joined to show unification across the house of cardiology and that this is indeed the way that the cardiovascular profession should move.” 
 

“Time to Separate from Internal Medicine”

The general concept behind the new cardiology board is to separate cardiology from the ABIM. 

“This is rooted from the concept that cardiology has evolved so much over the last few decades into such a large multidimensional specialty that it really does demarcate itself from internal medicine, and as such, it deserves a separate board governed by cardiologists with collaboration across the entirely of cardiology,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

Cardiology has had significant growth and expansion of technology, tools, medications, and the approach to patients in many specialities and subspecialties, he added. “We have defined training programs in many different areas within cardiology; we have our own guidelines, our own competency statements, and in many cases, cardiology exists as its own department outside of medicine in many institutions. It’s just time to separate cardiology from the umbrella of internal medicine.” 

The new cardiology board would be separate from, and not report to, the ABIM; rather, it would report directly to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the only recognized medical certification body in the US. 
 

What Are the Proposed Changes

Under the present system, managed by the ABIM, clinicians must undergo two stages of certification to be a cardiologist. First, they have to pass the initial certification exam in general cardiology, and then exams in one of four subspecialties if they plan to enter one of these, including interventional cardiology, electrophysiology, advanced heart failure or adult congenital heart disease. 

Next, clinicians enter the maintenance of certification phase, which can take three different forms: 1) taking another recertification exam every 10 years; 2) the collaborative maintenance pathway — a collaboration between ACC and ABIM, which includes evaluation, learning and a certified exam each year; or 3) longitudinal knowledge and assessment — in which the program interacts with the clinician on an ongoing basis, sending secured questions regularly. 

All three of these pathways for maintenance of certification involve high stakes questions and a set bar for passing or failing. 

Under the proposed new cardiology board, an initial certification exam would still be required after fellowship training, but the maintenance of certification process would be completely restructured, with the new approach taking the form of continuous learning and assessment of competency. 

“This is an iterative process, but we envision with a new American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine, we will pick up where the ABIM left off,” Dr. Kuvin notes. “That includes an initial certifying examination for the five areas that already exist under the ABIM system but with the opportunities to expand that to further specialties as well.”

He points out that there are several areas in cardiology that are currently not represented by these five areas that warrant some discussion, including multimodality imaging, vascular heart disease, and cardio-oncology. 

“At present, everybody has to pass the general cardiology exam and then some may wish to further train and get certified in one of the other four other specific areas. But one topic that has been discussed over many years is how do we maintain competency in the areas in which clinicians practice over their lifetime as a cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin commented. 

He said the proposed cardiology board would like to adhere to some basic principles that are fundamental to the practice of medicine. 

“We want to make sure that we are practicing medicine so that our patients derive the most benefit from seeing a cardiologist,” he said. “We also want to make sure, however, that this is a supportive process, supporting cardiologists to learn what they know and more importantly what they don’t know; to identify knowledge gaps in specific area; to help the cardiologist fill those knowledge gaps; to acknowledge those gaps have been filled; and then move on to another area of interest. This will be the focus of this new and improved model of continuous competency.”

The proposed new board also says it wants to make sure this is appropriate to the area in which the clinician is practicing.

“To take a closed book certified exam every 10 years on the world of cardiology as happens at the current time – or the assessments conducted in the other two pathways – is often meaningless to the cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin says. “All three current pathways involve high stakes questions that are often irrelevant to one’s clinical practice.” 
 

Lifelong Learning

“The crux of the changes we are proposing will be away from the focus of passing a test towards a model of helping the individual with their competency, with continuous learning and evaluation of competency to help the clinician fill in their knowledge gaps,” he explains.

He described the new approach as “lifelong learning,” adding that, instead of it being “a punitive pass/fail environment with no feedback, which causes a lot of discontent among clinicians,” it will be a supportive process, where a clinician will be helped in filling their knowledge gaps. 

“I think this would be a welcome change not just for cardiology but across medical specialties,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

He also pointed out the ABMS itself is considering a continuous competency approach, and the proposed new cardiology board aims to work with the ABMS to make sure that their goals of continuous competency assessment are matched. 

“The world has changed. The ability to access information has changed. It is no longer imperative for a clinician to have every piece of knowledge in their brain, but rather to know how to get knowledge and to incorporate that knowledge into clinical practice,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “Competency should not involve knowledge alone as in a closed book exam. It is more about understanding the world that we live in, how to synthesize information, where we need to improve knowledge and how to do that.” 

Dr. Kuvin acknowledged that asking clinicians questions is a very helpful tool to identify their knowledge base and their knowledge gaps. “But we believe the clinician needs to be given resources — that could be a conference, an article, a simulation — to fill that knowledge gap. Then we could ask clinicians some different questions and if they get those right then we have provided a service.” 

Tactile skills for cardiologists needing to perform procedures – such as interventionalists or electrophysiologists may be incorporated by simulation in a technology-based scenario.

On how often these assessments would take place, Dr. Kuvin said that hadn’t been decided for sure. 

“We certainly do not think an assessment every 10 years is appropriate. We envision, instead of an episodic model, it will be rather a lifelong journey of education and competency. This will involve frequent contact and making sure knowledge gaps are being filled. There are criteria being set out by the ABMS that there should be a certain number of touch points with individuals on an annual as well as a 5-year basis to make sure cardiologists are staying within specific guardrails. The exact nature of these is yet to be determined,” he said. 

Dr. Kuvin added that it was not known yet what sort of hours would be required but added that “this will not be a significant time burden.”
 

What is the Timeframe?

The application to the ABMS for a separate cardiology board is still ongoing and has not yet received formal acceptance. Representatives from the five US cardiovascular societies are in the initial stages of formulating a transition board. 

“The submission to the ABMS will take time for them to review. This could take up to a year or so,” Dr. Kuvin estimates. 

This is the first time the ABMS has entertained the concept of a new board in many years, he noted. “It will be a paradigm shift for the whole country. I think that cardiology is really at the forefront and in a position where we can actually do this. If cardiovascular medicine is granted a new board, I think this will help change the approach of how physicians are assessed in terms of continuous competency not just in cardiology but across all specialties of medicine.”

He added: “We are confident that we can work within the construct of the ABMS guidelines that have been revised to be much more holistic in the approach of continuous competence across the board. This includes thinking beyond rote medical knowledge and thinking about the clinician as a whole and their abilities to communicate, act professionally, work within a complex medical system, utilize medical resources effectively. These all have to be part of continuous competence.”
 

How Much Will This Cost?

Noting that the ABIM has received criticism over the costs of the certification process, Dr. Kuvin said they intend to make this “as lean a machine as possible with the focus on reducing the financial [burden] as well as the time burden for cardiologists. It is very important that this is not cumbersome, that it is woven into clinical practice, and that it is not costly.” 

But he pointed out that building a new board will have significant costs. 

“We have to think about developing initial board certification examinations as well as changing the paradigm on continuous certification,” he said. “This will take some up-front costs, and our society partners have decided that they are willing to provide some start-up funds for this. We anticipate the initial certification will remain somewhat similar in price, but the cost of ongoing continuous competency assessment will be significantly reduced compared to today’s models.”

Dr. Kuvin said the collaboration of the five participating US cardiovascular societies was unprecedented. But he noted that while the transition board is beginning with representatives of these individual societies, it will ultimately be independent from these societies and have its own board of directors. 

He suggested that other societies representing other parts of cardiology are also interested. “Cardiology has recognized how important this is,” he said. “Everybody is excited about this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Sleep problems are common in women with breast cancer and often associated with poorer physical and mental health, a new study finds. Poor sleep quality and short sleep duration in particular were associated with poorer mental well-being.

“It’s important to ask patients [with breast cancer] about sleep and provide targeted interventions to improve sleep, when needed, to improve quality of life,” Lin Yang, PhD, with Cancer Care Alberta and University of Calgary, Canada, said in an interview.

The growing population of breast cancer survivors, particularly in developed countries, is burdened by a high prevalence of sleep problems, affecting more than half of the survivors, Dr. Yang said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 

The AMBER cohort study delved into how sleep health aspects, including sleep duration, timing, and quality, relate to the physical and mental well-being of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. 

The study recruited 1409 women with newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer from Edmonton and Calgary, Canada, between 2012 and 2019. 

The women completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) to assess habitual sleep duration and timing as well as sleep latency, efficiency, disturbance, medication, and daytime dysfunction and version two of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) to assess physical and mental well-being. 

Multivariable linear regressions were used to estimate the association of sleep characteristics with physical and mental well-being, adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, clinical, and lifestyle behavior factors.

Among the total patient cohort (mean age, 55 years), 41% experienced either short sleep duration (less than 6 h/d) or long sleep duration (more than 9 h/d), and the same percentage also reported regularly going to bed after 11 PM.

Of note, said Dr. Yang, in the multivariable model, short sleep duration was significantly associated with poorer mental well-being (beta-coefficient, -3.6; 95% CI, -4.7 to -2.4) but not poorer physical well-being (beta-coefficient, -1.5; 95% CI, -2.3 to -0.7). 

Sleep timing didn’t appear to have a meaningful impact on quality of life. 

However, poor sleep quality, measured through various metrics like sleep efficiency, disturbances, medication use, and daytime dysfunction, correlated with reduced physical and mental well-being, Dr. Yang said. 

She noted that targeted interventions to improve sleep health may lead to improvements in the quality of life among women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

“Sleep is something we don’t necessarily think about in patients with breast cancer,” said Don Dizon, MD, with Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, discussant for the study presentation.

However, this study shows the “clinical significance” of sleep, he said. “Notably 35% of this population is taking a sleeping pill.” 

Dr. Yang is an editorial board member of the Journal of Healthy Eating and Active Living. Dr. Dizon receives consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Glaxo Smith Kline, Kronos Bio, and Pfizer and industry grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Sleep problems are common in women with breast cancer and often associated with poorer physical and mental health, a new study finds. Poor sleep quality and short sleep duration in particular were associated with poorer mental well-being.

“It’s important to ask patients [with breast cancer] about sleep and provide targeted interventions to improve sleep, when needed, to improve quality of life,” Lin Yang, PhD, with Cancer Care Alberta and University of Calgary, Canada, said in an interview.

The growing population of breast cancer survivors, particularly in developed countries, is burdened by a high prevalence of sleep problems, affecting more than half of the survivors, Dr. Yang said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 

The AMBER cohort study delved into how sleep health aspects, including sleep duration, timing, and quality, relate to the physical and mental well-being of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. 

The study recruited 1409 women with newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer from Edmonton and Calgary, Canada, between 2012 and 2019. 

The women completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) to assess habitual sleep duration and timing as well as sleep latency, efficiency, disturbance, medication, and daytime dysfunction and version two of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) to assess physical and mental well-being. 

Multivariable linear regressions were used to estimate the association of sleep characteristics with physical and mental well-being, adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, clinical, and lifestyle behavior factors.

Among the total patient cohort (mean age, 55 years), 41% experienced either short sleep duration (less than 6 h/d) or long sleep duration (more than 9 h/d), and the same percentage also reported regularly going to bed after 11 PM.

Of note, said Dr. Yang, in the multivariable model, short sleep duration was significantly associated with poorer mental well-being (beta-coefficient, -3.6; 95% CI, -4.7 to -2.4) but not poorer physical well-being (beta-coefficient, -1.5; 95% CI, -2.3 to -0.7). 

Sleep timing didn’t appear to have a meaningful impact on quality of life. 

However, poor sleep quality, measured through various metrics like sleep efficiency, disturbances, medication use, and daytime dysfunction, correlated with reduced physical and mental well-being, Dr. Yang said. 

She noted that targeted interventions to improve sleep health may lead to improvements in the quality of life among women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

“Sleep is something we don’t necessarily think about in patients with breast cancer,” said Don Dizon, MD, with Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, discussant for the study presentation.

However, this study shows the “clinical significance” of sleep, he said. “Notably 35% of this population is taking a sleeping pill.” 

Dr. Yang is an editorial board member of the Journal of Healthy Eating and Active Living. Dr. Dizon receives consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Glaxo Smith Kline, Kronos Bio, and Pfizer and industry grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Sleep problems are common in women with breast cancer and often associated with poorer physical and mental health, a new study finds. Poor sleep quality and short sleep duration in particular were associated with poorer mental well-being.

“It’s important to ask patients [with breast cancer] about sleep and provide targeted interventions to improve sleep, when needed, to improve quality of life,” Lin Yang, PhD, with Cancer Care Alberta and University of Calgary, Canada, said in an interview.

The growing population of breast cancer survivors, particularly in developed countries, is burdened by a high prevalence of sleep problems, affecting more than half of the survivors, Dr. Yang said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 

The AMBER cohort study delved into how sleep health aspects, including sleep duration, timing, and quality, relate to the physical and mental well-being of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. 

The study recruited 1409 women with newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer from Edmonton and Calgary, Canada, between 2012 and 2019. 

The women completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) to assess habitual sleep duration and timing as well as sleep latency, efficiency, disturbance, medication, and daytime dysfunction and version two of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) to assess physical and mental well-being. 

Multivariable linear regressions were used to estimate the association of sleep characteristics with physical and mental well-being, adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, clinical, and lifestyle behavior factors.

Among the total patient cohort (mean age, 55 years), 41% experienced either short sleep duration (less than 6 h/d) or long sleep duration (more than 9 h/d), and the same percentage also reported regularly going to bed after 11 PM.

Of note, said Dr. Yang, in the multivariable model, short sleep duration was significantly associated with poorer mental well-being (beta-coefficient, -3.6; 95% CI, -4.7 to -2.4) but not poorer physical well-being (beta-coefficient, -1.5; 95% CI, -2.3 to -0.7). 

Sleep timing didn’t appear to have a meaningful impact on quality of life. 

However, poor sleep quality, measured through various metrics like sleep efficiency, disturbances, medication use, and daytime dysfunction, correlated with reduced physical and mental well-being, Dr. Yang said. 

She noted that targeted interventions to improve sleep health may lead to improvements in the quality of life among women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

“Sleep is something we don’t necessarily think about in patients with breast cancer,” said Don Dizon, MD, with Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, discussant for the study presentation.

However, this study shows the “clinical significance” of sleep, he said. “Notably 35% of this population is taking a sleeping pill.” 

Dr. Yang is an editorial board member of the Journal of Healthy Eating and Active Living. Dr. Dizon receives consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Glaxo Smith Kline, Kronos Bio, and Pfizer and industry grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Though many people remain on the fence about getting the latest COVID vaccine booster, new research suggests a strong argument for getting the shot this winter: It sharply reduces the risk for COVID. 

Researchers found that getting vaccinated led to a 69% reduction in long-COVID risk among adults who received three vaccines before being infected. The risk reduction was 37% for those who received two doses. Experts say the research provides a strong argument for getting the vaccine, noting that about 10% of people infected with COVID go on to have long COVID, which can be debilitating for one quarter of those with long-lasting symptoms.

The data come from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis published in October in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology. Researchers examined 32 studies published between December 2019 and June 2023, involving 775,931 adults. Twenty-four studies, encompassing 620,221 individuals, were included in the meta-analysis. 

“The body of evidence from all these different studies converge on one single reality — that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID, and people who keep up to date on their vaccinations also fared better than people who got it once or twice and didn’t follow up,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St Louis. 

Researchers have reported similar results for children. The National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative team found that vaccines are up to 42% effective in preventing long COVID in children, said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and Yale researcher who contributed to the study, which is in preprint. 

Vaccines also protect children from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition that can happen after COVID, as well as protect against other COVID-related problems, such as missed school days, Oliveira said. “Even if the vaccine doesn’t completely stop long COVID, it’s still good for kids to get vaccinated for all these other reasons.” 

However, uptake for the latest boosters has been slow: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by mid-November, less than 16% of people aged 18 years or older had received a shot. For children, the number was closer to 6%. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that booster rates for adults are similar to what it was 1 year ago. 

The survey results suggest that people are no longer as worried about COVID, which is why there is less concerned about keeping up with boosters. Though the current mutation of the virus is not as debilitating as its predecessors, long COVID continues to be a problem: as of January 2023, 28% of people who had contracted the virus had experienced long-COVID symptoms. And though the mechanisms are still not fully understood, and researchers have yet to agree on a definition of long COVID, they are certain about this much: The best way to avoid it is to avoid getting infected to begin with. 

The lack of a diagnostic test for long COVID and the fact that the symptoms mimic those of other diseases lead to inconsistency that can make studies hard to replicate. In the papers reviewed for the Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms lasting from more than 4 weeks to more than 6 months. Alexandre Marra, MD, the lead author and a researcher at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, in São Paulo, Brazil, and at the University of Iowa, said that a clear standard definition is needed to better understand the actual prevalence and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. 

Al-Aly noted that there is a logical explanation for one finding in the paper: The percentage of individuals who had COVID and reported that long-COVID symptoms declined from 19% in June 2022 to 11% in January 2023. 

Because a pandemic is a dynamic event, constantly producing different variants with different phenotypes, the prevalence of disease is naturally going to be affected. “People who got infected early in the pandemic may have a different long COVID profile and long COVID risk than people who got infected in the second or third year of the pandemic,” Al-Aly said. 

Most of the studies reported data from before the Omicron-variant era. Only eight reported data during that era. Omicron was not as lethal as previous variants, and consequently, fewer patients developed long COVID during that time. 

One of those who did is Yeng Chang, age 40 years, a family doctor who lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. Chang developed long COVID during fall 2022 after getting the virus in June. By then, she’d been vaccinated three times, but she isn’t surprised that she got sick because each vaccine she had was developed before Omicron.

“When I had COVID I was really sick, but I was well enough to stay home,” she said. “I think if I didn’t have my immunizations, I might have been hospitalized, and I don’t know what would have happened.” 

Long COVID has left Chang with brain fog, fatigue, and a lack of physical stamina that forced her to pause her medical practice. For the past year and a half, she’s spent more time as a patient than a physician. 

Chang had her fifth COVID vaccination in the fall and recommends that others do the same. “The booster you got however many years ago was effective for the COVID of that time but there is a new COVID now. You can’t just say, ‘I had one and I’m fine forever.’” 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Though many people remain on the fence about getting the latest COVID vaccine booster, new research suggests a strong argument for getting the shot this winter: It sharply reduces the risk for COVID. 

Researchers found that getting vaccinated led to a 69% reduction in long-COVID risk among adults who received three vaccines before being infected. The risk reduction was 37% for those who received two doses. Experts say the research provides a strong argument for getting the vaccine, noting that about 10% of people infected with COVID go on to have long COVID, which can be debilitating for one quarter of those with long-lasting symptoms.

The data come from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis published in October in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology. Researchers examined 32 studies published between December 2019 and June 2023, involving 775,931 adults. Twenty-four studies, encompassing 620,221 individuals, were included in the meta-analysis. 

“The body of evidence from all these different studies converge on one single reality — that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID, and people who keep up to date on their vaccinations also fared better than people who got it once or twice and didn’t follow up,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St Louis. 

Researchers have reported similar results for children. The National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative team found that vaccines are up to 42% effective in preventing long COVID in children, said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and Yale researcher who contributed to the study, which is in preprint. 

Vaccines also protect children from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition that can happen after COVID, as well as protect against other COVID-related problems, such as missed school days, Oliveira said. “Even if the vaccine doesn’t completely stop long COVID, it’s still good for kids to get vaccinated for all these other reasons.” 

However, uptake for the latest boosters has been slow: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by mid-November, less than 16% of people aged 18 years or older had received a shot. For children, the number was closer to 6%. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that booster rates for adults are similar to what it was 1 year ago. 

The survey results suggest that people are no longer as worried about COVID, which is why there is less concerned about keeping up with boosters. Though the current mutation of the virus is not as debilitating as its predecessors, long COVID continues to be a problem: as of January 2023, 28% of people who had contracted the virus had experienced long-COVID symptoms. And though the mechanisms are still not fully understood, and researchers have yet to agree on a definition of long COVID, they are certain about this much: The best way to avoid it is to avoid getting infected to begin with. 

The lack of a diagnostic test for long COVID and the fact that the symptoms mimic those of other diseases lead to inconsistency that can make studies hard to replicate. In the papers reviewed for the Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms lasting from more than 4 weeks to more than 6 months. Alexandre Marra, MD, the lead author and a researcher at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, in São Paulo, Brazil, and at the University of Iowa, said that a clear standard definition is needed to better understand the actual prevalence and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. 

Al-Aly noted that there is a logical explanation for one finding in the paper: The percentage of individuals who had COVID and reported that long-COVID symptoms declined from 19% in June 2022 to 11% in January 2023. 

Because a pandemic is a dynamic event, constantly producing different variants with different phenotypes, the prevalence of disease is naturally going to be affected. “People who got infected early in the pandemic may have a different long COVID profile and long COVID risk than people who got infected in the second or third year of the pandemic,” Al-Aly said. 

Most of the studies reported data from before the Omicron-variant era. Only eight reported data during that era. Omicron was not as lethal as previous variants, and consequently, fewer patients developed long COVID during that time. 

One of those who did is Yeng Chang, age 40 years, a family doctor who lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. Chang developed long COVID during fall 2022 after getting the virus in June. By then, she’d been vaccinated three times, but she isn’t surprised that she got sick because each vaccine she had was developed before Omicron.

“When I had COVID I was really sick, but I was well enough to stay home,” she said. “I think if I didn’t have my immunizations, I might have been hospitalized, and I don’t know what would have happened.” 

Long COVID has left Chang with brain fog, fatigue, and a lack of physical stamina that forced her to pause her medical practice. For the past year and a half, she’s spent more time as a patient than a physician. 

Chang had her fifth COVID vaccination in the fall and recommends that others do the same. “The booster you got however many years ago was effective for the COVID of that time but there is a new COVID now. You can’t just say, ‘I had one and I’m fine forever.’” 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Though many people remain on the fence about getting the latest COVID vaccine booster, new research suggests a strong argument for getting the shot this winter: It sharply reduces the risk for COVID. 

Researchers found that getting vaccinated led to a 69% reduction in long-COVID risk among adults who received three vaccines before being infected. The risk reduction was 37% for those who received two doses. Experts say the research provides a strong argument for getting the vaccine, noting that about 10% of people infected with COVID go on to have long COVID, which can be debilitating for one quarter of those with long-lasting symptoms.

The data come from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis published in October in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology. Researchers examined 32 studies published between December 2019 and June 2023, involving 775,931 adults. Twenty-four studies, encompassing 620,221 individuals, were included in the meta-analysis. 

“The body of evidence from all these different studies converge on one single reality — that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID, and people who keep up to date on their vaccinations also fared better than people who got it once or twice and didn’t follow up,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St Louis. 

Researchers have reported similar results for children. The National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative team found that vaccines are up to 42% effective in preventing long COVID in children, said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and Yale researcher who contributed to the study, which is in preprint. 

Vaccines also protect children from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition that can happen after COVID, as well as protect against other COVID-related problems, such as missed school days, Oliveira said. “Even if the vaccine doesn’t completely stop long COVID, it’s still good for kids to get vaccinated for all these other reasons.” 

However, uptake for the latest boosters has been slow: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by mid-November, less than 16% of people aged 18 years or older had received a shot. For children, the number was closer to 6%. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that booster rates for adults are similar to what it was 1 year ago. 

The survey results suggest that people are no longer as worried about COVID, which is why there is less concerned about keeping up with boosters. Though the current mutation of the virus is not as debilitating as its predecessors, long COVID continues to be a problem: as of January 2023, 28% of people who had contracted the virus had experienced long-COVID symptoms. And though the mechanisms are still not fully understood, and researchers have yet to agree on a definition of long COVID, they are certain about this much: The best way to avoid it is to avoid getting infected to begin with. 

The lack of a diagnostic test for long COVID and the fact that the symptoms mimic those of other diseases lead to inconsistency that can make studies hard to replicate. In the papers reviewed for the Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms lasting from more than 4 weeks to more than 6 months. Alexandre Marra, MD, the lead author and a researcher at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, in São Paulo, Brazil, and at the University of Iowa, said that a clear standard definition is needed to better understand the actual prevalence and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. 

Al-Aly noted that there is a logical explanation for one finding in the paper: The percentage of individuals who had COVID and reported that long-COVID symptoms declined from 19% in June 2022 to 11% in January 2023. 

Because a pandemic is a dynamic event, constantly producing different variants with different phenotypes, the prevalence of disease is naturally going to be affected. “People who got infected early in the pandemic may have a different long COVID profile and long COVID risk than people who got infected in the second or third year of the pandemic,” Al-Aly said. 

Most of the studies reported data from before the Omicron-variant era. Only eight reported data during that era. Omicron was not as lethal as previous variants, and consequently, fewer patients developed long COVID during that time. 

One of those who did is Yeng Chang, age 40 years, a family doctor who lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. Chang developed long COVID during fall 2022 after getting the virus in June. By then, she’d been vaccinated three times, but she isn’t surprised that she got sick because each vaccine she had was developed before Omicron.

“When I had COVID I was really sick, but I was well enough to stay home,” she said. “I think if I didn’t have my immunizations, I might have been hospitalized, and I don’t know what would have happened.” 

Long COVID has left Chang with brain fog, fatigue, and a lack of physical stamina that forced her to pause her medical practice. For the past year and a half, she’s spent more time as a patient than a physician. 

Chang had her fifth COVID vaccination in the fall and recommends that others do the same. “The booster you got however many years ago was effective for the COVID of that time but there is a new COVID now. You can’t just say, ‘I had one and I’m fine forever.’” 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.