This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

One of the most controversial issues today is whether a physician should be permitted, or even obligated, to assist patients with a terminal or incurable illness to end their life – a process known as medical assistance in dying (MAID) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS.)

Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.

However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.

A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”

Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
 

Cognitive distortion or objective reality?

Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.

But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.

A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”

Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”

“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”

Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”

Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
 

“Enormous suffering”

One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.

But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”

The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”

One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”

Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”

Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”

A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.

“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”

However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
 

Another form of eugenics?

Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.

“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”

Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.

A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”

Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”

Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.

Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
 

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

One of the most controversial issues today is whether a physician should be permitted, or even obligated, to assist patients with a terminal or incurable illness to end their life – a process known as medical assistance in dying (MAID) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS.)

Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.

However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.

A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”

Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
 

Cognitive distortion or objective reality?

Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.

But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.

A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”

Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”

“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”

Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”

Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
 

“Enormous suffering”

One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.

But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”

The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”

One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”

Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”

Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”

A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.

“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”

However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
 

Another form of eugenics?

Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.

“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”

Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.

A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”

Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”

Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.

Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
 

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

One of the most controversial issues today is whether a physician should be permitted, or even obligated, to assist patients with a terminal or incurable illness to end their life – a process known as medical assistance in dying (MAID) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS.)

Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.

However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.

A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”

Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
 

Cognitive distortion or objective reality?

Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.

But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.

A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”

Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”

“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”

Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”

Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
 

“Enormous suffering”

One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.

But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”

The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”

One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”

Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”

Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”

A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.

“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”

However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
 

Another form of eugenics?

Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.

“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”

Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.

A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”

Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”

Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.

Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
 

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5 – from the Omicron family – now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July. 

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation. 

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29 – the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.
 

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading – but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.”
 

What the official numbers say

The CDC no longer updates its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review. They stopped in May 2023 when the federal public health emergency ended.

But the agency continues to track COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ED visits, and deaths in different ways. The key takeaways include 9,056 new hospitalizations reported for the week ending July 29, 2023. That is relatively low, compared with July 30, 2022, when the weekly new hospitalization numbers topped 44,000. 

“Last year, we saw a summer wave with cases peaking around mid-July. In that sense, our summer wave is coming a bit later than last year,” said Pavitra Roychoudhury, PhD, an assistant professor and researcher in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“It’s unclear how high the peak will be during this current wave. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, as well as the number of hospitalizations, are currently lower than this time last year.” 

For part of the pandemic, the CDC recommended people monitor COVID numbers in their own communities. But the agency’s local guidance on COVID is tied to hospital admission levels, which are currently low for more than 99% of the country, even if they are increasing. 

So, while it’s good news that hospitalization numbers are smaller, it means the agency’s ability to identify local outbreaks or hot spots of SARS-CoV-2 is now more limited. 

It’s not just an uptick in hospitalizations nationwide, as other COVID-19 indicators, including ED visits, positive tests, and wastewater levels, are increasing across the United States. 

In terms of other metrics: 

• On June 19, 0.47% of ED visits resulted in a positive COVID diagnosis. On Aug. 4, that rate had more than doubled to 1.1%. 
• On July 29, 8.9% of people who took a COVID test reported a positive result. The positivity rate has been increasing since June 10, when 4.1% of tests came back positive. This figure only includes test results reported to the CDC. Results of home testing remain largely unknown. 
• The weekly percentage of deaths related to COVID-19 was 1% as of July 29. That’s low, compared with previous rates. For example, for the week ending July 30, 2022, it was 5.8%.

What about new COVID vaccines?

As long as the general public continue to make informed decisions and get the new Omicron vaccine or booster once it’s available, experts predict lower hospitalization rates this winter. 

“Everyone should get the Omicron booster when it becomes available,” recommended Dean Winslow, MD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

In the meantime, “it is important to emphasize that COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. Since the symptoms linked to these newer Omicron subvariants are generally milder than with earlier variants, “if one has even mild cold symptoms, it is a good idea to test yourself for COVID-19 and start treatment early if one is elderly or otherwise at high risk for severe disease.”

Dr. Schaffner remains optimistic for now. “We anticipate that the vaccines we currently have available, and certainly the vaccine that is being developed for this fall, will continue to prevent severe disease associated with this virus.”

Although it’s difficult to predict an exact time line, Dr. Schaffner said they could be available by the end of September. 

His predictions assume “that we don’t have a new nasty variant that crops up somewhere in the world,” he said. “[If] things continue to move the way they have been, we anticipate that this vaccine ... will be really effective and help us keep out of the hospital during this winter, when we expect more of an increase of COVID once again.” 

Asked for his outlook on vaccine recommendations, Dr. Camins was less certain. “It is too soon to tell.” Guidance on COVID shots will be based on results of ongoing studies. “It would be prudent, however, for everyone to plan on getting the flu shot in September.”

Stay alert and stay realistic

Cautious optimism and a call to remain vigilant seem like the consensus at the moment. While the numbers remain low so far and the uptick in new cases and hospitalizations are relatively small, compared with past scenarios, “it makes sense to boost our anti-Omicron antibody levels with immunizations before fall and winter,” Dr. Liu said. 

“It’s just advisable for everyone – especially those who are at higher risk for hospitalization or death – to be aware,” Dr. Camins said, “so they can form their own decisions to participate in activities that may put them at risk for contracting COVID-19.”

While respiratory virus work best at keeping people with the flu, COVID, or RSV out of the hospital, they’re not as good at preventing milder infections. Dr. Schaffner said: “If we don’t expect perfection, we won’t be so disappointed.”

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5 – from the Omicron family – now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July. 

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation. 

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29 – the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.
 

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading – but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.”
 

What the official numbers say

The CDC no longer updates its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review. They stopped in May 2023 when the federal public health emergency ended.

But the agency continues to track COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ED visits, and deaths in different ways. The key takeaways include 9,056 new hospitalizations reported for the week ending July 29, 2023. That is relatively low, compared with July 30, 2022, when the weekly new hospitalization numbers topped 44,000. 

“Last year, we saw a summer wave with cases peaking around mid-July. In that sense, our summer wave is coming a bit later than last year,” said Pavitra Roychoudhury, PhD, an assistant professor and researcher in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“It’s unclear how high the peak will be during this current wave. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, as well as the number of hospitalizations, are currently lower than this time last year.” 

For part of the pandemic, the CDC recommended people monitor COVID numbers in their own communities. But the agency’s local guidance on COVID is tied to hospital admission levels, which are currently low for more than 99% of the country, even if they are increasing. 

So, while it’s good news that hospitalization numbers are smaller, it means the agency’s ability to identify local outbreaks or hot spots of SARS-CoV-2 is now more limited. 

It’s not just an uptick in hospitalizations nationwide, as other COVID-19 indicators, including ED visits, positive tests, and wastewater levels, are increasing across the United States. 

In terms of other metrics: 

• On June 19, 0.47% of ED visits resulted in a positive COVID diagnosis. On Aug. 4, that rate had more than doubled to 1.1%. 
• On July 29, 8.9% of people who took a COVID test reported a positive result. The positivity rate has been increasing since June 10, when 4.1% of tests came back positive. This figure only includes test results reported to the CDC. Results of home testing remain largely unknown. 
• The weekly percentage of deaths related to COVID-19 was 1% as of July 29. That’s low, compared with previous rates. For example, for the week ending July 30, 2022, it was 5.8%.

What about new COVID vaccines?

As long as the general public continue to make informed decisions and get the new Omicron vaccine or booster once it’s available, experts predict lower hospitalization rates this winter. 

“Everyone should get the Omicron booster when it becomes available,” recommended Dean Winslow, MD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

In the meantime, “it is important to emphasize that COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. Since the symptoms linked to these newer Omicron subvariants are generally milder than with earlier variants, “if one has even mild cold symptoms, it is a good idea to test yourself for COVID-19 and start treatment early if one is elderly or otherwise at high risk for severe disease.”

Dr. Schaffner remains optimistic for now. “We anticipate that the vaccines we currently have available, and certainly the vaccine that is being developed for this fall, will continue to prevent severe disease associated with this virus.”

Although it’s difficult to predict an exact time line, Dr. Schaffner said they could be available by the end of September. 

His predictions assume “that we don’t have a new nasty variant that crops up somewhere in the world,” he said. “[If] things continue to move the way they have been, we anticipate that this vaccine ... will be really effective and help us keep out of the hospital during this winter, when we expect more of an increase of COVID once again.” 

Asked for his outlook on vaccine recommendations, Dr. Camins was less certain. “It is too soon to tell.” Guidance on COVID shots will be based on results of ongoing studies. “It would be prudent, however, for everyone to plan on getting the flu shot in September.”

Stay alert and stay realistic

Cautious optimism and a call to remain vigilant seem like the consensus at the moment. While the numbers remain low so far and the uptick in new cases and hospitalizations are relatively small, compared with past scenarios, “it makes sense to boost our anti-Omicron antibody levels with immunizations before fall and winter,” Dr. Liu said. 

“It’s just advisable for everyone – especially those who are at higher risk for hospitalization or death – to be aware,” Dr. Camins said, “so they can form their own decisions to participate in activities that may put them at risk for contracting COVID-19.”

While respiratory virus work best at keeping people with the flu, COVID, or RSV out of the hospital, they’re not as good at preventing milder infections. Dr. Schaffner said: “If we don’t expect perfection, we won’t be so disappointed.”

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5 – from the Omicron family – now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July. 

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation. 

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29 – the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.
 

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading – but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.”
 

What the official numbers say

The CDC no longer updates its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review. They stopped in May 2023 when the federal public health emergency ended.

But the agency continues to track COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ED visits, and deaths in different ways. The key takeaways include 9,056 new hospitalizations reported for the week ending July 29, 2023. That is relatively low, compared with July 30, 2022, when the weekly new hospitalization numbers topped 44,000. 

“Last year, we saw a summer wave with cases peaking around mid-July. In that sense, our summer wave is coming a bit later than last year,” said Pavitra Roychoudhury, PhD, an assistant professor and researcher in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“It’s unclear how high the peak will be during this current wave. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, as well as the number of hospitalizations, are currently lower than this time last year.” 

For part of the pandemic, the CDC recommended people monitor COVID numbers in their own communities. But the agency’s local guidance on COVID is tied to hospital admission levels, which are currently low for more than 99% of the country, even if they are increasing. 

So, while it’s good news that hospitalization numbers are smaller, it means the agency’s ability to identify local outbreaks or hot spots of SARS-CoV-2 is now more limited. 

It’s not just an uptick in hospitalizations nationwide, as other COVID-19 indicators, including ED visits, positive tests, and wastewater levels, are increasing across the United States. 

In terms of other metrics: 

• On June 19, 0.47% of ED visits resulted in a positive COVID diagnosis. On Aug. 4, that rate had more than doubled to 1.1%. 
• On July 29, 8.9% of people who took a COVID test reported a positive result. The positivity rate has been increasing since June 10, when 4.1% of tests came back positive. This figure only includes test results reported to the CDC. Results of home testing remain largely unknown. 
• The weekly percentage of deaths related to COVID-19 was 1% as of July 29. That’s low, compared with previous rates. For example, for the week ending July 30, 2022, it was 5.8%.

What about new COVID vaccines?

As long as the general public continue to make informed decisions and get the new Omicron vaccine or booster once it’s available, experts predict lower hospitalization rates this winter. 

“Everyone should get the Omicron booster when it becomes available,” recommended Dean Winslow, MD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

In the meantime, “it is important to emphasize that COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. Since the symptoms linked to these newer Omicron subvariants are generally milder than with earlier variants, “if one has even mild cold symptoms, it is a good idea to test yourself for COVID-19 and start treatment early if one is elderly or otherwise at high risk for severe disease.”

Dr. Schaffner remains optimistic for now. “We anticipate that the vaccines we currently have available, and certainly the vaccine that is being developed for this fall, will continue to prevent severe disease associated with this virus.”

Although it’s difficult to predict an exact time line, Dr. Schaffner said they could be available by the end of September. 

His predictions assume “that we don’t have a new nasty variant that crops up somewhere in the world,” he said. “[If] things continue to move the way they have been, we anticipate that this vaccine ... will be really effective and help us keep out of the hospital during this winter, when we expect more of an increase of COVID once again.” 

Asked for his outlook on vaccine recommendations, Dr. Camins was less certain. “It is too soon to tell.” Guidance on COVID shots will be based on results of ongoing studies. “It would be prudent, however, for everyone to plan on getting the flu shot in September.”

Stay alert and stay realistic

Cautious optimism and a call to remain vigilant seem like the consensus at the moment. While the numbers remain low so far and the uptick in new cases and hospitalizations are relatively small, compared with past scenarios, “it makes sense to boost our anti-Omicron antibody levels with immunizations before fall and winter,” Dr. Liu said. 

“It’s just advisable for everyone – especially those who are at higher risk for hospitalization or death – to be aware,” Dr. Camins said, “so they can form their own decisions to participate in activities that may put them at risk for contracting COVID-19.”

While respiratory virus work best at keeping people with the flu, COVID, or RSV out of the hospital, they’re not as good at preventing milder infections. Dr. Schaffner said: “If we don’t expect perfection, we won’t be so disappointed.”

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

A new predictive tool known as the Psoriatic Arthritis Risk Estimation Tool (PRESTO) is now available to help clinicians estimate the risk of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in their patients with psoriasis.

Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.

To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.

The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).

In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”

courtesy Dr. Saakshi Khattri

Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”

Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.

The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”

The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.

A new predictive tool known as the Psoriatic Arthritis Risk Estimation Tool (PRESTO) is now available to help clinicians estimate the risk of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in their patients with psoriasis.

Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.

To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.

The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).

In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”

courtesy Dr. Saakshi Khattri

Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”

Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.

The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”

The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.

A new predictive tool known as the Psoriatic Arthritis Risk Estimation Tool (PRESTO) is now available to help clinicians estimate the risk of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in their patients with psoriasis.

Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.

To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.

The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).

In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”

courtesy Dr. Saakshi Khattri

Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”

Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.

The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”

The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may be more common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes than is currently appreciated, a new literature review suggests.

The condition – in which the pancreas fails to produce sufficient enzymes to fully digest food – can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including steatorrhea or other stool changes, bloating, and/or abdominal pain. The preferred test for diagnosis is a 72-hour fecal fat quantification test, but fecal elastase-1 is a less invasive and reliable alternative; values of less than 200 mcg/g indicate EPI. Treatment is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), taken with every meal.

EPI occurs in up to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis and is commonly associated with acute pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. However, those conditions are relatively rare compared to diabetes, yet the EPI association with diabetes is less well-studied, Dana M. Lewis, BA, points out in her review article.

While the data vary across studies, owing to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall median prevalence of EPI was 33% among patients with type 1 diabetes (range, 14%-77.5%) and 29% among patients with type 2 diabetes (range, 16.8%-49.2%), Ms. Lewis reports in the article, which was published in Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics.

“Cumulatively, this suggests there may be significant numbers of people with diabetes with EPI who are undiagnosed. People with diabetes who present with gastrointestinal symptoms – such as steatorrhea or changes in stool, bloating, and/or abdominal pain – should be screened for EPI. Diabetes specialists, gastroenterologists, and primary care providers should be aware of the high rates of prevalence of diabetes and EPI and recommend fecal elastase-1 screening for people with diabetes and GI symptoms,” Ms. Lewis writes.

Since the publication of her article, Ms. Lewis told this news organization, “I’ve gotten feedback from multiple diabetes and general providers that they will be changing their practice as a result of this paper, by screening people with diabetes who have GI symptoms for EPI, which is wonderful to hear.”

In addition, she noted that since she began blogging about EPI and diabetes last year following her own delayed diagnosis, “I have had at least half a dozen people with diabetes tell me that they’ve since sought screening for EPI after years of GI symptoms and ended up being diagnosed with EPI as well.”

Asked to comment, Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “it would be prudent to investigate EPI and treat it when confirmed. Consultation with a gastroenterologist colleague may be helpful. Treatment is quite rewarding.”
 

Data limitations; and don’t forget celiac disease and gastroparesis

However, as does Ms. Lewis, Dr. Khardori points to the limitations of the current literature.

“This review suffers from the lack of uniformity amongst the studies in terms of diagnosis and documentation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Many studies lack a control group to draw any meaningful conclusions. Correlations with duration of diabetes, age of onset, symptoms, and glycemic control were mostly lacking,” says Dr. Khardori, now retired but formerly professor of medicine: endocrinology and metabolism at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

In general, the data suggest that PERT is safe and effective for people with diabetes and that it may reduce glycemic variability. However, “there are not many studies looking at glucose outcomes in detail, and only one study that has used CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data, so this is a big area of need for future study,” Ms. Lewis told this news organization.

Ms. Lewis also reviewed the literature on the prevalence of two other diabetes-related gastrointestinal conditions, celiac disease and gastroparesis, “because anecdotally, it seems as though diabetes care providers and people with diabetes are more aware of those as causes of GI symptoms.”

In type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of both celiac disease and gastroparesis are reported at about 5%, in contrast to the 33% for EPI. Similarly, in type 2 diabetes, the reported prevalence of these two conditions are 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, vs. 29% for EPI.

“This suggests to me that there is likely disproportionate screening for things like celiac [disease] and gastroparesis in diabetes, and that screening for EPI when people with diabetes present with GI symptoms is warranted,” Ms. Lewis said.

However, Dr. Khardori cautioned that those conditions may also be missed, noting, “Celiac disease often is undiagnosed and gastropathy or gastroparesis may be overlooked in a busy primary care clinic where most patients with diabetes mellitus get their care.”

Ms. Lewis and Dr. Khardori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may be more common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes than is currently appreciated, a new literature review suggests.

The condition – in which the pancreas fails to produce sufficient enzymes to fully digest food – can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including steatorrhea or other stool changes, bloating, and/or abdominal pain. The preferred test for diagnosis is a 72-hour fecal fat quantification test, but fecal elastase-1 is a less invasive and reliable alternative; values of less than 200 mcg/g indicate EPI. Treatment is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), taken with every meal.

EPI occurs in up to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis and is commonly associated with acute pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. However, those conditions are relatively rare compared to diabetes, yet the EPI association with diabetes is less well-studied, Dana M. Lewis, BA, points out in her review article.

While the data vary across studies, owing to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall median prevalence of EPI was 33% among patients with type 1 diabetes (range, 14%-77.5%) and 29% among patients with type 2 diabetes (range, 16.8%-49.2%), Ms. Lewis reports in the article, which was published in Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics.

“Cumulatively, this suggests there may be significant numbers of people with diabetes with EPI who are undiagnosed. People with diabetes who present with gastrointestinal symptoms – such as steatorrhea or changes in stool, bloating, and/or abdominal pain – should be screened for EPI. Diabetes specialists, gastroenterologists, and primary care providers should be aware of the high rates of prevalence of diabetes and EPI and recommend fecal elastase-1 screening for people with diabetes and GI symptoms,” Ms. Lewis writes.

Since the publication of her article, Ms. Lewis told this news organization, “I’ve gotten feedback from multiple diabetes and general providers that they will be changing their practice as a result of this paper, by screening people with diabetes who have GI symptoms for EPI, which is wonderful to hear.”

In addition, she noted that since she began blogging about EPI and diabetes last year following her own delayed diagnosis, “I have had at least half a dozen people with diabetes tell me that they’ve since sought screening for EPI after years of GI symptoms and ended up being diagnosed with EPI as well.”

Asked to comment, Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “it would be prudent to investigate EPI and treat it when confirmed. Consultation with a gastroenterologist colleague may be helpful. Treatment is quite rewarding.”
 

Data limitations; and don’t forget celiac disease and gastroparesis

However, as does Ms. Lewis, Dr. Khardori points to the limitations of the current literature.

“This review suffers from the lack of uniformity amongst the studies in terms of diagnosis and documentation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Many studies lack a control group to draw any meaningful conclusions. Correlations with duration of diabetes, age of onset, symptoms, and glycemic control were mostly lacking,” says Dr. Khardori, now retired but formerly professor of medicine: endocrinology and metabolism at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

In general, the data suggest that PERT is safe and effective for people with diabetes and that it may reduce glycemic variability. However, “there are not many studies looking at glucose outcomes in detail, and only one study that has used CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data, so this is a big area of need for future study,” Ms. Lewis told this news organization.

Ms. Lewis also reviewed the literature on the prevalence of two other diabetes-related gastrointestinal conditions, celiac disease and gastroparesis, “because anecdotally, it seems as though diabetes care providers and people with diabetes are more aware of those as causes of GI symptoms.”

In type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of both celiac disease and gastroparesis are reported at about 5%, in contrast to the 33% for EPI. Similarly, in type 2 diabetes, the reported prevalence of these two conditions are 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, vs. 29% for EPI.

“This suggests to me that there is likely disproportionate screening for things like celiac [disease] and gastroparesis in diabetes, and that screening for EPI when people with diabetes present with GI symptoms is warranted,” Ms. Lewis said.

However, Dr. Khardori cautioned that those conditions may also be missed, noting, “Celiac disease often is undiagnosed and gastropathy or gastroparesis may be overlooked in a busy primary care clinic where most patients with diabetes mellitus get their care.”

Ms. Lewis and Dr. Khardori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may be more common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes than is currently appreciated, a new literature review suggests.

The condition – in which the pancreas fails to produce sufficient enzymes to fully digest food – can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including steatorrhea or other stool changes, bloating, and/or abdominal pain. The preferred test for diagnosis is a 72-hour fecal fat quantification test, but fecal elastase-1 is a less invasive and reliable alternative; values of less than 200 mcg/g indicate EPI. Treatment is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), taken with every meal.

EPI occurs in up to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis and is commonly associated with acute pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. However, those conditions are relatively rare compared to diabetes, yet the EPI association with diabetes is less well-studied, Dana M. Lewis, BA, points out in her review article.

While the data vary across studies, owing to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall median prevalence of EPI was 33% among patients with type 1 diabetes (range, 14%-77.5%) and 29% among patients with type 2 diabetes (range, 16.8%-49.2%), Ms. Lewis reports in the article, which was published in Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics.

“Cumulatively, this suggests there may be significant numbers of people with diabetes with EPI who are undiagnosed. People with diabetes who present with gastrointestinal symptoms – such as steatorrhea or changes in stool, bloating, and/or abdominal pain – should be screened for EPI. Diabetes specialists, gastroenterologists, and primary care providers should be aware of the high rates of prevalence of diabetes and EPI and recommend fecal elastase-1 screening for people with diabetes and GI symptoms,” Ms. Lewis writes.

Since the publication of her article, Ms. Lewis told this news organization, “I’ve gotten feedback from multiple diabetes and general providers that they will be changing their practice as a result of this paper, by screening people with diabetes who have GI symptoms for EPI, which is wonderful to hear.”

In addition, she noted that since she began blogging about EPI and diabetes last year following her own delayed diagnosis, “I have had at least half a dozen people with diabetes tell me that they’ve since sought screening for EPI after years of GI symptoms and ended up being diagnosed with EPI as well.”

Asked to comment, Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “it would be prudent to investigate EPI and treat it when confirmed. Consultation with a gastroenterologist colleague may be helpful. Treatment is quite rewarding.”
 

Data limitations; and don’t forget celiac disease and gastroparesis

However, as does Ms. Lewis, Dr. Khardori points to the limitations of the current literature.

“This review suffers from the lack of uniformity amongst the studies in terms of diagnosis and documentation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Many studies lack a control group to draw any meaningful conclusions. Correlations with duration of diabetes, age of onset, symptoms, and glycemic control were mostly lacking,” says Dr. Khardori, now retired but formerly professor of medicine: endocrinology and metabolism at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

In general, the data suggest that PERT is safe and effective for people with diabetes and that it may reduce glycemic variability. However, “there are not many studies looking at glucose outcomes in detail, and only one study that has used CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data, so this is a big area of need for future study,” Ms. Lewis told this news organization.

Ms. Lewis also reviewed the literature on the prevalence of two other diabetes-related gastrointestinal conditions, celiac disease and gastroparesis, “because anecdotally, it seems as though diabetes care providers and people with diabetes are more aware of those as causes of GI symptoms.”

In type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of both celiac disease and gastroparesis are reported at about 5%, in contrast to the 33% for EPI. Similarly, in type 2 diabetes, the reported prevalence of these two conditions are 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, vs. 29% for EPI.

“This suggests to me that there is likely disproportionate screening for things like celiac [disease] and gastroparesis in diabetes, and that screening for EPI when people with diabetes present with GI symptoms is warranted,” Ms. Lewis said.

However, Dr. Khardori cautioned that those conditions may also be missed, noting, “Celiac disease often is undiagnosed and gastropathy or gastroparesis may be overlooked in a busy primary care clinic where most patients with diabetes mellitus get their care.”

Ms. Lewis and Dr. Khardori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 45-year-old women presents for evaluation of fatigue. She has been tired for the past 6 months. She has had no problems with sleep and no other new symptoms. Her physical exam is unremarkable. Her Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score is 4. Lab results are as follows: hemoglobin, 13 g/dL; hematocrit, 39%; mean corpuscular volume, 90 fL; blood urea nitrogen, 10 mg/dL; Cr, 1.0 mg/dL; AST, 20 IU/L; ALT, 15 IU/L; ferritin, 35 mcg/mL; thyroid-stimulating hormone, 3.5 mIU/L.

What would you recommend?

A. Sertraline

B. Sleep study

C. Iron supplementation

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Verdon F et al. BMJ. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1124. .

2. Houston BL et al. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 5;8(4):e019240.

3. Almohanna HM et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2019 Mar;9(1):51-70. .

4. Hard S. Acta Derm Venereol. 1963;43:562-9.

5. Kantor J et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2003 Nov;121(5):985-8. .

6. Allen RP et al. Sleep Med. 2018 Jan;41:27-44. .

A 45-year-old women presents for evaluation of fatigue. She has been tired for the past 6 months. She has had no problems with sleep and no other new symptoms. Her physical exam is unremarkable. Her Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score is 4. Lab results are as follows: hemoglobin, 13 g/dL; hematocrit, 39%; mean corpuscular volume, 90 fL; blood urea nitrogen, 10 mg/dL; Cr, 1.0 mg/dL; AST, 20 IU/L; ALT, 15 IU/L; ferritin, 35 mcg/mL; thyroid-stimulating hormone, 3.5 mIU/L.

What would you recommend?

A. Sertraline

B. Sleep study

C. Iron supplementation

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Verdon F et al. BMJ. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1124. .

2. Houston BL et al. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 5;8(4):e019240.

3. Almohanna HM et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2019 Mar;9(1):51-70. .

4. Hard S. Acta Derm Venereol. 1963;43:562-9.

5. Kantor J et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2003 Nov;121(5):985-8. .

6. Allen RP et al. Sleep Med. 2018 Jan;41:27-44. .

A 45-year-old women presents for evaluation of fatigue. She has been tired for the past 6 months. She has had no problems with sleep and no other new symptoms. Her physical exam is unremarkable. Her Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score is 4. Lab results are as follows: hemoglobin, 13 g/dL; hematocrit, 39%; mean corpuscular volume, 90 fL; blood urea nitrogen, 10 mg/dL; Cr, 1.0 mg/dL; AST, 20 IU/L; ALT, 15 IU/L; ferritin, 35 mcg/mL; thyroid-stimulating hormone, 3.5 mIU/L.

What would you recommend?

A. Sertraline

B. Sleep study

C. Iron supplementation

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Verdon F et al. BMJ. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1124. .

2. Houston BL et al. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 5;8(4):e019240.

3. Almohanna HM et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2019 Mar;9(1):51-70. .

4. Hard S. Acta Derm Venereol. 1963;43:562-9.

5. Kantor J et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2003 Nov;121(5):985-8. .

6. Allen RP et al. Sleep Med. 2018 Jan;41:27-44. .

The patient's history of psoriasis, along with his current skin and scalp plaque flares, symmetrical joint symptomatology, laboratory studies, and x-rays, suggest a diagnosis of symmetrical psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The rheumatologist considers ordering additional imaging to assess for subclinical enthesitis and dactylitis, and discusses treatment next steps with the patient, given inadequate control with a TNF inhibitor. 

Symmetrical polyarthritis is one of the most common types of PsA and involves five or more joints in the hands, wrists, ankles, and/or feet. Among patients with PsA, 60% to 80% experience plaque psoriasis before joint-symptom onset; time to joint-symptom onset in these patients typically occurs within 10 years of a plaque psoriasis diagnosis. Involvement of DIP joints differentiates PsA from rheumatoid arthritis, as does the absence of subcutaneous nodules and a negative result for rheumatoid factor. About 30% of all people with plaque psoriasis will develop PsA, which affects an estimated 1 million people in the United States annually. Symptoms typically appear between the ages of 35 and 55 years; women are more likely than men to develop symmetrical PsA. 

There are no specific diagnostic tests for PsA. Rheumatologists generally use the assessment known as the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis, (CASPAR), which can help reveal established inflammatory articular disease through a point system based on the presence/absence of various factors. On laboratory studies, the most common characteristic abnormalities of PsA are elevated ESR and CRP levels and negative rheumatoid factor in most patients. Other abnormalities that may be present in patients with PsA include elevated serum uric acid concentration and serum immunoglobulin A, and reduced levels of circulating immune complexes. Physicians also use imaging studies, such as radiography, ultrasonography, and MRI, to help differentiate PsA from other articular diseases.

While the pathogenesis of PsA remains unclear, research has shown that disease development is associated with a complex interplay of immune-mediated inflammatory responses; genetic and environmental factors may also be involved. In addition, patients with PsA are more likely to have a high risk for comorbidities, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and cardiovascular events, compared with the general population.

When patients with PsA experience both skin and joint symptoms, a multidisciplinary approach to care is advised. Multidisciplinary teams play a key role in educating patients about their treatment plans and managing their PsA symptoms. The teams also help patients determine the best approaches to exercise to help maintain current joint function, as well as helpful adjustments in daily activities that will make it easier to accommodate their disease. 

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, whether self-prescribed or prescribed by a physician, are a common initial treatment to manage joint symptoms of PsA. Current American College of Rheumatology treatment guidelines, however, encourage early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) because approximately 40% of patients with PsA develop erosive and deforming arthritis. Several DMARDs are available, including older drugs like methotrexate, as well as newer biologic agents, such as TNF inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, and Janus kinase inhibitors. In addition, guidelines recommend early and customized physical therapy and rehabilitation approaches for patients with PsA.

Herbert S. Diamond, MD, Professor of Medicine (retired), Temple University School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; Chairman, Department of Medicine Emeritus, Western Pennsylvania Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA.

Herbert S. Diamond, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The patient's history of psoriasis, along with his current skin and scalp plaque flares, symmetrical joint symptomatology, laboratory studies, and x-rays, suggest a diagnosis of symmetrical psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The rheumatologist considers ordering additional imaging to assess for subclinical enthesitis and dactylitis, and discusses treatment next steps with the patient, given inadequate control with a TNF inhibitor. 

Symmetrical polyarthritis is one of the most common types of PsA and involves five or more joints in the hands, wrists, ankles, and/or feet. Among patients with PsA, 60% to 80% experience plaque psoriasis before joint-symptom onset; time to joint-symptom onset in these patients typically occurs within 10 years of a plaque psoriasis diagnosis. Involvement of DIP joints differentiates PsA from rheumatoid arthritis, as does the absence of subcutaneous nodules and a negative result for rheumatoid factor. About 30% of all people with plaque psoriasis will develop PsA, which affects an estimated 1 million people in the United States annually. Symptoms typically appear between the ages of 35 and 55 years; women are more likely than men to develop symmetrical PsA. 

There are no specific diagnostic tests for PsA. Rheumatologists generally use the assessment known as the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis, (CASPAR), which can help reveal established inflammatory articular disease through a point system based on the presence/absence of various factors. On laboratory studies, the most common characteristic abnormalities of PsA are elevated ESR and CRP levels and negative rheumatoid factor in most patients. Other abnormalities that may be present in patients with PsA include elevated serum uric acid concentration and serum immunoglobulin A, and reduced levels of circulating immune complexes. Physicians also use imaging studies, such as radiography, ultrasonography, and MRI, to help differentiate PsA from other articular diseases.

While the pathogenesis of PsA remains unclear, research has shown that disease development is associated with a complex interplay of immune-mediated inflammatory responses; genetic and environmental factors may also be involved. In addition, patients with PsA are more likely to have a high risk for comorbidities, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and cardiovascular events, compared with the general population.

When patients with PsA experience both skin and joint symptoms, a multidisciplinary approach to care is advised. Multidisciplinary teams play a key role in educating patients about their treatment plans and managing their PsA symptoms. The teams also help patients determine the best approaches to exercise to help maintain current joint function, as well as helpful adjustments in daily activities that will make it easier to accommodate their disease. 

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, whether self-prescribed or prescribed by a physician, are a common initial treatment to manage joint symptoms of PsA. Current American College of Rheumatology treatment guidelines, however, encourage early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) because approximately 40% of patients with PsA develop erosive and deforming arthritis. Several DMARDs are available, including older drugs like methotrexate, as well as newer biologic agents, such as TNF inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, and Janus kinase inhibitors. In addition, guidelines recommend early and customized physical therapy and rehabilitation approaches for patients with PsA.

Herbert S. Diamond, MD, Professor of Medicine (retired), Temple University School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; Chairman, Department of Medicine Emeritus, Western Pennsylvania Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA.

Herbert S. Diamond, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The patient's history of psoriasis, along with his current skin and scalp plaque flares, symmetrical joint symptomatology, laboratory studies, and x-rays, suggest a diagnosis of symmetrical psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The rheumatologist considers ordering additional imaging to assess for subclinical enthesitis and dactylitis, and discusses treatment next steps with the patient, given inadequate control with a TNF inhibitor. 

Symmetrical polyarthritis is one of the most common types of PsA and involves five or more joints in the hands, wrists, ankles, and/or feet. Among patients with PsA, 60% to 80% experience plaque psoriasis before joint-symptom onset; time to joint-symptom onset in these patients typically occurs within 10 years of a plaque psoriasis diagnosis. Involvement of DIP joints differentiates PsA from rheumatoid arthritis, as does the absence of subcutaneous nodules and a negative result for rheumatoid factor. About 30% of all people with plaque psoriasis will develop PsA, which affects an estimated 1 million people in the United States annually. Symptoms typically appear between the ages of 35 and 55 years; women are more likely than men to develop symmetrical PsA. 

There are no specific diagnostic tests for PsA. Rheumatologists generally use the assessment known as the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis, (CASPAR), which can help reveal established inflammatory articular disease through a point system based on the presence/absence of various factors. On laboratory studies, the most common characteristic abnormalities of PsA are elevated ESR and CRP levels and negative rheumatoid factor in most patients. Other abnormalities that may be present in patients with PsA include elevated serum uric acid concentration and serum immunoglobulin A, and reduced levels of circulating immune complexes. Physicians also use imaging studies, such as radiography, ultrasonography, and MRI, to help differentiate PsA from other articular diseases.

While the pathogenesis of PsA remains unclear, research has shown that disease development is associated with a complex interplay of immune-mediated inflammatory responses; genetic and environmental factors may also be involved. In addition, patients with PsA are more likely to have a high risk for comorbidities, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and cardiovascular events, compared with the general population.

When patients with PsA experience both skin and joint symptoms, a multidisciplinary approach to care is advised. Multidisciplinary teams play a key role in educating patients about their treatment plans and managing their PsA symptoms. The teams also help patients determine the best approaches to exercise to help maintain current joint function, as well as helpful adjustments in daily activities that will make it easier to accommodate their disease. 

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, whether self-prescribed or prescribed by a physician, are a common initial treatment to manage joint symptoms of PsA. Current American College of Rheumatology treatment guidelines, however, encourage early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) because approximately 40% of patients with PsA develop erosive and deforming arthritis. Several DMARDs are available, including older drugs like methotrexate, as well as newer biologic agents, such as TNF inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, and Janus kinase inhibitors. In addition, guidelines recommend early and customized physical therapy and rehabilitation approaches for patients with PsA.

Herbert S. Diamond, MD, Professor of Medicine (retired), Temple University School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; Chairman, Department of Medicine Emeritus, Western Pennsylvania Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA.

Herbert S. Diamond, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among military veterans who die by suicide, those who experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during service take their lives 21% sooner after deployment than those without a TBI history, a new study shows.

Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.

Veterans Health Administration

“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.

“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Largest, longest study to date

Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.

Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.

Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.

New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.

There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).

But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
 

Sharp differences in time to suicide

Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.

Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.

The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.

“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
 

Applicable to civilians?

“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.

“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”

However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.

“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.

The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
 

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

Among military veterans who die by suicide, those who experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during service take their lives 21% sooner after deployment than those without a TBI history, a new study shows.

Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.

Veterans Health Administration

“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.

“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Largest, longest study to date

Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.

Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.

Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.

New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.

There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).

But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
 

Sharp differences in time to suicide

Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.

Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.

The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.

“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
 

Applicable to civilians?

“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.

“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”

However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.

“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.

The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
 

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

Among military veterans who die by suicide, those who experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during service take their lives 21% sooner after deployment than those without a TBI history, a new study shows.

Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.

Veterans Health Administration

“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.

“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Largest, longest study to date

Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.

Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.

Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.

New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.

There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).

But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
 

Sharp differences in time to suicide

Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.

Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.

The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.

“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
 

Applicable to civilians?

“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.

“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”

However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.

“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.

The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
 

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

Presenting obesity as a chronic medical condition, rather than as a failure to eat less and move more, may improve self-esteem among patients with obesity and enhance their relationships with their doctors, a new study suggests.

In an online study, patients with obesity reported significantly less internalized weight bias and significantly enhanced perceptions of positive communication with their medical providers after watching a video of a doctor who framed obesity as a treatable medical condition, compared with a video of a doctor who emphasized willpower.

“Recent research has identified the dominant role that biology (both genetics as well as homeostatic, hedonic, and executive brain systems) and environment, rather than willpower, play in the development of obesity and the resistance to weight loss,” wrote study authors Sara English, a medical student, and Michael Vallis, MD, associate professor of family medicine, both at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. “Yet the false narrative that ideal or goal weight can be achieved by eating less and moving more using willpower continues to dominate the public narrative.”

The findings were published in Clinical Obesity.
 

Medical complexity

The public discussion generally places all responsibility for the health outcomes of obesity on the patient. As a result, patients with obesity face bias and stigma from the public and the health care system, wrote the authors.

This stigmatization contributes to increased mortality and morbidity by promoting maladaptive eating behaviors and stress. It also causes mistrust of health care professionals, which, in turn, leads to worse health outcomes and increased health care costs.

The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for obesity management in adults emphasize that obesity is complex and that nonbehavioral factors strongly influence it. They recommend that treatment focus on improving patient-centered health outcomes and address the root causes of obesity, instead of focusing on weight loss alone.

In the present study, Ms. English and Dr. Vallis evaluated how presenting obesity as a treatable medical condition affected participants’ internalized weight bias and their perceived relationship with their health care provider. They asked 61 patients with obesity (average age, 49 years; average body mass index, 41 kg/m²) to watch two videos, the first showing a doctor endorsing the traditional “eat less, move more approach,” and the second showing a doctor describing obesity as a chronic, treatable medical condition.

Nearly half (49.5%) of participants reported that their health care provider rarely or never discusses weight loss, and almost two-thirds of participants (64%) reported feeling stigmatized by their health care provider because of their weight at least some of the time.

After having watched each video, participants were asked to imagine that they were being treated by the corresponding doctor and to complete two measures: the Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS), which measures the degree to which a respondent believes the negative stereotypes about obese people, and the Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Scale (PHCPCS), which assesses the quality of patient–health care provider communication.

Virtually all participants preferred the care provider in the video with the revised presentation of obesity. Only one preferred the traditional video. The video with the revised presentation was associated with significant reductions in internalized weight bias. Participants’ WBIS total score decreased from 4.49 to 3.36 (P < .001). The revised narrative video also had a positive effect on patients’ perception of their health care providers. The PHCPCS total score increased from 2.65 to 4.20 (P < .001).
 

A chronic disease

In a comment, Yoni Freedhoff, MD, associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa, said: “If you’re asking me if it is a good idea to treat obesity like a chronic disease, the answer would be yes, we absolutely should. It is a chronic disease, and it shouldn’t have a treatment paradigm different from the other chronic diseases.” Dr. Freedhoff did not participate in the study.

“We certainly don’t blame patients for having other chronic conditions,” Dr. Freedhoff added. “We don’t have a narrative that, in order for them to qualify for medication or other treatment options, they have to audition for them by failing lifestyle approaches first. And yet, I’d say at least 85% of chronic noncommunicable diseases have lifestyle factors, but obesity is the only one where we consider that there is a necessity for these lifestyle changes, as if there have been studies demonstrating durable and reproducible outcomes for lifestyle in obesity. There have not.” 

Telling patients and doctors that obesity is a chronic disease driven by biology, not a failure of willpower, is going to reduce stigma, “which is what this study was able to demonstrate to some degree,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

“What is more stigmatizing? Being told that if you just try hard enough, you’ll succeed, and if you don’t succeed, the corollary, of course, is that you did not try hard enough? Versus, you’ve got a medical condition where you’ve got biological drivers beyond your locus of control, affecting behaviors that, in turn, contribute to your adiposity? I’m pretty sure the second statement will have far less impact on a person’s internalized weight bias than what we’ve unfortunately been doing up until now with the focus on willpower,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

No funding for the study was reported. Ms. English and Dr. Vallis reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Freedhoff reported receiving clinical grants from Novo Nordisk.

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

Presenting obesity as a chronic medical condition, rather than as a failure to eat less and move more, may improve self-esteem among patients with obesity and enhance their relationships with their doctors, a new study suggests.

In an online study, patients with obesity reported significantly less internalized weight bias and significantly enhanced perceptions of positive communication with their medical providers after watching a video of a doctor who framed obesity as a treatable medical condition, compared with a video of a doctor who emphasized willpower.

“Recent research has identified the dominant role that biology (both genetics as well as homeostatic, hedonic, and executive brain systems) and environment, rather than willpower, play in the development of obesity and the resistance to weight loss,” wrote study authors Sara English, a medical student, and Michael Vallis, MD, associate professor of family medicine, both at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. “Yet the false narrative that ideal or goal weight can be achieved by eating less and moving more using willpower continues to dominate the public narrative.”

The findings were published in Clinical Obesity.
 

Medical complexity

The public discussion generally places all responsibility for the health outcomes of obesity on the patient. As a result, patients with obesity face bias and stigma from the public and the health care system, wrote the authors.

This stigmatization contributes to increased mortality and morbidity by promoting maladaptive eating behaviors and stress. It also causes mistrust of health care professionals, which, in turn, leads to worse health outcomes and increased health care costs.

The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for obesity management in adults emphasize that obesity is complex and that nonbehavioral factors strongly influence it. They recommend that treatment focus on improving patient-centered health outcomes and address the root causes of obesity, instead of focusing on weight loss alone.

In the present study, Ms. English and Dr. Vallis evaluated how presenting obesity as a treatable medical condition affected participants’ internalized weight bias and their perceived relationship with their health care provider. They asked 61 patients with obesity (average age, 49 years; average body mass index, 41 kg/m²) to watch two videos, the first showing a doctor endorsing the traditional “eat less, move more approach,” and the second showing a doctor describing obesity as a chronic, treatable medical condition.

Nearly half (49.5%) of participants reported that their health care provider rarely or never discusses weight loss, and almost two-thirds of participants (64%) reported feeling stigmatized by their health care provider because of their weight at least some of the time.

After having watched each video, participants were asked to imagine that they were being treated by the corresponding doctor and to complete two measures: the Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS), which measures the degree to which a respondent believes the negative stereotypes about obese people, and the Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Scale (PHCPCS), which assesses the quality of patient–health care provider communication.

Virtually all participants preferred the care provider in the video with the revised presentation of obesity. Only one preferred the traditional video. The video with the revised presentation was associated with significant reductions in internalized weight bias. Participants’ WBIS total score decreased from 4.49 to 3.36 (P < .001). The revised narrative video also had a positive effect on patients’ perception of their health care providers. The PHCPCS total score increased from 2.65 to 4.20 (P < .001).
 

A chronic disease

In a comment, Yoni Freedhoff, MD, associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa, said: “If you’re asking me if it is a good idea to treat obesity like a chronic disease, the answer would be yes, we absolutely should. It is a chronic disease, and it shouldn’t have a treatment paradigm different from the other chronic diseases.” Dr. Freedhoff did not participate in the study.

“We certainly don’t blame patients for having other chronic conditions,” Dr. Freedhoff added. “We don’t have a narrative that, in order for them to qualify for medication or other treatment options, they have to audition for them by failing lifestyle approaches first. And yet, I’d say at least 85% of chronic noncommunicable diseases have lifestyle factors, but obesity is the only one where we consider that there is a necessity for these lifestyle changes, as if there have been studies demonstrating durable and reproducible outcomes for lifestyle in obesity. There have not.” 

Telling patients and doctors that obesity is a chronic disease driven by biology, not a failure of willpower, is going to reduce stigma, “which is what this study was able to demonstrate to some degree,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

“What is more stigmatizing? Being told that if you just try hard enough, you’ll succeed, and if you don’t succeed, the corollary, of course, is that you did not try hard enough? Versus, you’ve got a medical condition where you’ve got biological drivers beyond your locus of control, affecting behaviors that, in turn, contribute to your adiposity? I’m pretty sure the second statement will have far less impact on a person’s internalized weight bias than what we’ve unfortunately been doing up until now with the focus on willpower,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

No funding for the study was reported. Ms. English and Dr. Vallis reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Freedhoff reported receiving clinical grants from Novo Nordisk.

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

Presenting obesity as a chronic medical condition, rather than as a failure to eat less and move more, may improve self-esteem among patients with obesity and enhance their relationships with their doctors, a new study suggests.

In an online study, patients with obesity reported significantly less internalized weight bias and significantly enhanced perceptions of positive communication with their medical providers after watching a video of a doctor who framed obesity as a treatable medical condition, compared with a video of a doctor who emphasized willpower.

“Recent research has identified the dominant role that biology (both genetics as well as homeostatic, hedonic, and executive brain systems) and environment, rather than willpower, play in the development of obesity and the resistance to weight loss,” wrote study authors Sara English, a medical student, and Michael Vallis, MD, associate professor of family medicine, both at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. “Yet the false narrative that ideal or goal weight can be achieved by eating less and moving more using willpower continues to dominate the public narrative.”

The findings were published in Clinical Obesity.
 

Medical complexity

The public discussion generally places all responsibility for the health outcomes of obesity on the patient. As a result, patients with obesity face bias and stigma from the public and the health care system, wrote the authors.

This stigmatization contributes to increased mortality and morbidity by promoting maladaptive eating behaviors and stress. It also causes mistrust of health care professionals, which, in turn, leads to worse health outcomes and increased health care costs.

The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for obesity management in adults emphasize that obesity is complex and that nonbehavioral factors strongly influence it. They recommend that treatment focus on improving patient-centered health outcomes and address the root causes of obesity, instead of focusing on weight loss alone.

In the present study, Ms. English and Dr. Vallis evaluated how presenting obesity as a treatable medical condition affected participants’ internalized weight bias and their perceived relationship with their health care provider. They asked 61 patients with obesity (average age, 49 years; average body mass index, 41 kg/m²) to watch two videos, the first showing a doctor endorsing the traditional “eat less, move more approach,” and the second showing a doctor describing obesity as a chronic, treatable medical condition.

Nearly half (49.5%) of participants reported that their health care provider rarely or never discusses weight loss, and almost two-thirds of participants (64%) reported feeling stigmatized by their health care provider because of their weight at least some of the time.

After having watched each video, participants were asked to imagine that they were being treated by the corresponding doctor and to complete two measures: the Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS), which measures the degree to which a respondent believes the negative stereotypes about obese people, and the Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Scale (PHCPCS), which assesses the quality of patient–health care provider communication.

Virtually all participants preferred the care provider in the video with the revised presentation of obesity. Only one preferred the traditional video. The video with the revised presentation was associated with significant reductions in internalized weight bias. Participants’ WBIS total score decreased from 4.49 to 3.36 (P < .001). The revised narrative video also had a positive effect on patients’ perception of their health care providers. The PHCPCS total score increased from 2.65 to 4.20 (P < .001).
 

A chronic disease

In a comment, Yoni Freedhoff, MD, associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa, said: “If you’re asking me if it is a good idea to treat obesity like a chronic disease, the answer would be yes, we absolutely should. It is a chronic disease, and it shouldn’t have a treatment paradigm different from the other chronic diseases.” Dr. Freedhoff did not participate in the study.

“We certainly don’t blame patients for having other chronic conditions,” Dr. Freedhoff added. “We don’t have a narrative that, in order for them to qualify for medication or other treatment options, they have to audition for them by failing lifestyle approaches first. And yet, I’d say at least 85% of chronic noncommunicable diseases have lifestyle factors, but obesity is the only one where we consider that there is a necessity for these lifestyle changes, as if there have been studies demonstrating durable and reproducible outcomes for lifestyle in obesity. There have not.” 

Telling patients and doctors that obesity is a chronic disease driven by biology, not a failure of willpower, is going to reduce stigma, “which is what this study was able to demonstrate to some degree,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

“What is more stigmatizing? Being told that if you just try hard enough, you’ll succeed, and if you don’t succeed, the corollary, of course, is that you did not try hard enough? Versus, you’ve got a medical condition where you’ve got biological drivers beyond your locus of control, affecting behaviors that, in turn, contribute to your adiposity? I’m pretty sure the second statement will have far less impact on a person’s internalized weight bias than what we’ve unfortunately been doing up until now with the focus on willpower,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

No funding for the study was reported. Ms. English and Dr. Vallis reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Freedhoff reported receiving clinical grants from Novo Nordisk.

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

Yeung LK, Alschuler DM, Wall M, et al. Multivitamin supplementation improves memory in older adults: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutrition. 2023;118:273-282. doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.05.011.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Preservation of function, both physical and cognitive, is key to long-term health and well-being. Age-related loss of function drives millions of people to spend an enormous amount of money each year on unregulated therapies—vitamins, supplements, infusions, hormones, and “natural” products—all toward the promise of improvement or preservation of physical strength, sexual function, and maintenance of lean body mass and cognitive abilities. Yeung and colleagues set out to determine whether the daily use of a multivitamin/mineral supplement (Centrum Silver) would impact memory in older adults.¹

Details of the study

The COSMOS-Web study was designed to test the authors’ primary hypothesis that daily dietary flavanols would improve memory over 1 year.¹ This study was embedded within the larger COSMOS (COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study) trial, in which 21,442 people were recruited to assess the impact of flavanols and multivitamin supplements on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes.

Results of another ancillary study, the COSMOS-Mind trial (n = 2,262, average age 73, 60% female), reported no improvement with flavanols compared with placebo on a battery of tests of cognitive function administered by phone. In COSMOS-Mind, however, it was concluded that a daily multivitamin/mineral supplement improved the composite score of cognitive tests compared with placebo, particularly in participants with a history of cardiovascular disease.²

The COSMOS-Web trial recruited an additional cohort within the larger COSMOS trial from 2016–2017 (n = 3,562, average age 71, 67% female) to participate in this study specifically geared to assess memory, using the web-based ModRey test (a test of memory validated for use in a nonimpaired population). To qualify for enrollment, participants had to have access to an internet-connected computer. They were randomly assigned in a 2 x 2 study design to receive a daily multivitamin supplement or placebo; each of these cohorts was further divided into a flavanol supplementation or a placebo group. Analysis of the data showed no association between flavanol use and performance on any of the measures of memory or cognitive function.³

The COSMOS-Web trial assessed episodic recall, a function of hippocampus-mediated cognition that is particularly vulnerable to the effects of aging as demonstrated previously by neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies. The authors deployed a battery of 3 tests via a web platform for patients to complete online and independently.

The prespecified primary outcome was performance on episodic recall as measured by the ModRey test after 1 year of supplementation with multivitamins versus placebo. The ModRey test presents a series of 20 words at 3-second intervals to participants. At the conclusion of the last word, participants were asked to recall as many words as they could; after completing the 2 additional tasks, participants were asked again to recall the words. A secondary outcome of this test is the ratio of delayed to immediate recall.

Two additional tests were administered to assess cognitive performance related to different brain regions, the ModBent test (assessing novel object recognition) and the Flanker task (a measure of executive function). There was a placebo run-in phase during which participants’ adherence to daily supplement intake was ascertained. Participants were excluded if they demonstrated less than 75% adherence to study pills during the run-in placebo phase. The cognitive tasks were presented at study initiation and at yearly intervals for 3 years. The authors chose to use the results at 1 year as their primary outcome to assess the impact of supplementation during the period when adherence would be highest.

Results. At baseline, the placebo cohort recalled 7.2 words of 20 compared with 7.1 in the supplement group. In both groups there was a practice effect, with improvement in scores in the placebo group to 7.65 words and in the multivitamin group to 7.81 words. The improvement from baseline was statistically significantly better (0.71 words) in the multivitamin cohort than in the placebo group (0.45 words). There was no improvement in either group in the ModRey memory retention test (ability to recall the words after 15 minutes) or in the ModBent or Flanker tests. At 3 years of treatment, the placebo group improved by 0.92 words (SD, 3.22) whereas the multivitamin group improved by 1.13 words (SD, 3.39). These changes remained statistically significant.

The group with cardiovascular disease had lower baseline performance on the ModRey test. With supplementation, however, the improvement in this cohort was significantly greater than in those without cardiovascular disease at 1 year. The authors acknowledged that the changes were small and may not have been noticeable to the individuals, but they argued that even small changes as demonstrated in this study can have large health benefits at a population level.

The results of the COSMOS-Web trial corroborate the findings of the COSMOS-Mind study with respect to the benefits of multivitamin/mineral supplementation on cognitive test performance, particularly in a population with preexisting cardiovascular disease. The tests used across the 2 studies were different, which lends greater reliability to the findings.

Study strengths and limitations

A major strength of this study is its careful, rigorous design as a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in a large patient population. Great care was devoted to ensuring study medication adherence. Another strength is that the cognitive tests chosen for the COSMOS-Web trial have been validated in cognitively normal populations, not those already impaired.

A limitation, however, is in the demographics of the study. The patient population was overwhelmingly White (93%), 67% were female, and they were well educated (94.8% having completed some college or beyond). Their baseline health was good; only 4.7% had a history of cardiovascular disease. Although generalizability of the study results from this population may be concerning,relative benefits of supplementation in this healthy, generally well-nourished and educated group may be lower than might be expected in a more nutritionally and educationally challenged population.

Finally, the difference between the placebo and active supplementation groups was small. Whether this less-than-1-word difference in immediate memory recall is noticeable by a patient is questionable. Both groups improved in their test performance over time—a consequence of serial cognitive tests of any kind. Although the authors calculated that the difference in recall translates to a 3-year reduction in age-related memory decline, it is hard to reconcile that with the fact that both groups actually improved over the 3 years of the study. ●

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, NCMP, for her assistance in evaluating the study.

Yeung LK, Alschuler DM, Wall M, et al. Multivitamin supplementation improves memory in older adults: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutrition. 2023;118:273-282. doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.05.011.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Preservation of function, both physical and cognitive, is key to long-term health and well-being. Age-related loss of function drives millions of people to spend an enormous amount of money each year on unregulated therapies—vitamins, supplements, infusions, hormones, and “natural” products—all toward the promise of improvement or preservation of physical strength, sexual function, and maintenance of lean body mass and cognitive abilities. Yeung and colleagues set out to determine whether the daily use of a multivitamin/mineral supplement (Centrum Silver) would impact memory in older adults.¹

Details of the study

The COSMOS-Web study was designed to test the authors’ primary hypothesis that daily dietary flavanols would improve memory over 1 year.¹ This study was embedded within the larger COSMOS (COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study) trial, in which 21,442 people were recruited to assess the impact of flavanols and multivitamin supplements on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes.

Results of another ancillary study, the COSMOS-Mind trial (n = 2,262, average age 73, 60% female), reported no improvement with flavanols compared with placebo on a battery of tests of cognitive function administered by phone. In COSMOS-Mind, however, it was concluded that a daily multivitamin/mineral supplement improved the composite score of cognitive tests compared with placebo, particularly in participants with a history of cardiovascular disease.²

The COSMOS-Web trial recruited an additional cohort within the larger COSMOS trial from 2016–2017 (n = 3,562, average age 71, 67% female) to participate in this study specifically geared to assess memory, using the web-based ModRey test (a test of memory validated for use in a nonimpaired population). To qualify for enrollment, participants had to have access to an internet-connected computer. They were randomly assigned in a 2 x 2 study design to receive a daily multivitamin supplement or placebo; each of these cohorts was further divided into a flavanol supplementation or a placebo group. Analysis of the data showed no association between flavanol use and performance on any of the measures of memory or cognitive function.³

The COSMOS-Web trial assessed episodic recall, a function of hippocampus-mediated cognition that is particularly vulnerable to the effects of aging as demonstrated previously by neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies. The authors deployed a battery of 3 tests via a web platform for patients to complete online and independently.

The prespecified primary outcome was performance on episodic recall as measured by the ModRey test after 1 year of supplementation with multivitamins versus placebo. The ModRey test presents a series of 20 words at 3-second intervals to participants. At the conclusion of the last word, participants were asked to recall as many words as they could; after completing the 2 additional tasks, participants were asked again to recall the words. A secondary outcome of this test is the ratio of delayed to immediate recall.

Two additional tests were administered to assess cognitive performance related to different brain regions, the ModBent test (assessing novel object recognition) and the Flanker task (a measure of executive function). There was a placebo run-in phase during which participants’ adherence to daily supplement intake was ascertained. Participants were excluded if they demonstrated less than 75% adherence to study pills during the run-in placebo phase. The cognitive tasks were presented at study initiation and at yearly intervals for 3 years. The authors chose to use the results at 1 year as their primary outcome to assess the impact of supplementation during the period when adherence would be highest.

Results. At baseline, the placebo cohort recalled 7.2 words of 20 compared with 7.1 in the supplement group. In both groups there was a practice effect, with improvement in scores in the placebo group to 7.65 words and in the multivitamin group to 7.81 words. The improvement from baseline was statistically significantly better (0.71 words) in the multivitamin cohort than in the placebo group (0.45 words). There was no improvement in either group in the ModRey memory retention test (ability to recall the words after 15 minutes) or in the ModBent or Flanker tests. At 3 years of treatment, the placebo group improved by 0.92 words (SD, 3.22) whereas the multivitamin group improved by 1.13 words (SD, 3.39). These changes remained statistically significant.

The group with cardiovascular disease had lower baseline performance on the ModRey test. With supplementation, however, the improvement in this cohort was significantly greater than in those without cardiovascular disease at 1 year. The authors acknowledged that the changes were small and may not have been noticeable to the individuals, but they argued that even small changes as demonstrated in this study can have large health benefits at a population level.

The results of the COSMOS-Web trial corroborate the findings of the COSMOS-Mind study with respect to the benefits of multivitamin/mineral supplementation on cognitive test performance, particularly in a population with preexisting cardiovascular disease. The tests used across the 2 studies were different, which lends greater reliability to the findings.

Study strengths and limitations

A major strength of this study is its careful, rigorous design as a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in a large patient population. Great care was devoted to ensuring study medication adherence. Another strength is that the cognitive tests chosen for the COSMOS-Web trial have been validated in cognitively normal populations, not those already impaired.

A limitation, however, is in the demographics of the study. The patient population was overwhelmingly White (93%), 67% were female, and they were well educated (94.8% having completed some college or beyond). Their baseline health was good; only 4.7% had a history of cardiovascular disease. Although generalizability of the study results from this population may be concerning,relative benefits of supplementation in this healthy, generally well-nourished and educated group may be lower than might be expected in a more nutritionally and educationally challenged population.

Finally, the difference between the placebo and active supplementation groups was small. Whether this less-than-1-word difference in immediate memory recall is noticeable by a patient is questionable. Both groups improved in their test performance over time—a consequence of serial cognitive tests of any kind. Although the authors calculated that the difference in recall translates to a 3-year reduction in age-related memory decline, it is hard to reconcile that with the fact that both groups actually improved over the 3 years of the study. ●

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, NCMP, for her assistance in evaluating the study.

Yeung LK, Alschuler DM, Wall M, et al. Multivitamin supplementation improves memory in older adults: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutrition. 2023;118:273-282. doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.05.011.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Preservation of function, both physical and cognitive, is key to long-term health and well-being. Age-related loss of function drives millions of people to spend an enormous amount of money each year on unregulated therapies—vitamins, supplements, infusions, hormones, and “natural” products—all toward the promise of improvement or preservation of physical strength, sexual function, and maintenance of lean body mass and cognitive abilities. Yeung and colleagues set out to determine whether the daily use of a multivitamin/mineral supplement (Centrum Silver) would impact memory in older adults.¹

Details of the study

The COSMOS-Web study was designed to test the authors’ primary hypothesis that daily dietary flavanols would improve memory over 1 year.¹ This study was embedded within the larger COSMOS (COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study) trial, in which 21,442 people were recruited to assess the impact of flavanols and multivitamin supplements on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes.

Results of another ancillary study, the COSMOS-Mind trial (n = 2,262, average age 73, 60% female), reported no improvement with flavanols compared with placebo on a battery of tests of cognitive function administered by phone. In COSMOS-Mind, however, it was concluded that a daily multivitamin/mineral supplement improved the composite score of cognitive tests compared with placebo, particularly in participants with a history of cardiovascular disease.²

The COSMOS-Web trial recruited an additional cohort within the larger COSMOS trial from 2016–2017 (n = 3,562, average age 71, 67% female) to participate in this study specifically geared to assess memory, using the web-based ModRey test (a test of memory validated for use in a nonimpaired population). To qualify for enrollment, participants had to have access to an internet-connected computer. They were randomly assigned in a 2 x 2 study design to receive a daily multivitamin supplement or placebo; each of these cohorts was further divided into a flavanol supplementation or a placebo group. Analysis of the data showed no association between flavanol use and performance on any of the measures of memory or cognitive function.³

The COSMOS-Web trial assessed episodic recall, a function of hippocampus-mediated cognition that is particularly vulnerable to the effects of aging as demonstrated previously by neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies. The authors deployed a battery of 3 tests via a web platform for patients to complete online and independently.

The prespecified primary outcome was performance on episodic recall as measured by the ModRey test after 1 year of supplementation with multivitamins versus placebo. The ModRey test presents a series of 20 words at 3-second intervals to participants. At the conclusion of the last word, participants were asked to recall as many words as they could; after completing the 2 additional tasks, participants were asked again to recall the words. A secondary outcome of this test is the ratio of delayed to immediate recall.

Two additional tests were administered to assess cognitive performance related to different brain regions, the ModBent test (assessing novel object recognition) and the Flanker task (a measure of executive function). There was a placebo run-in phase during which participants’ adherence to daily supplement intake was ascertained. Participants were excluded if they demonstrated less than 75% adherence to study pills during the run-in placebo phase. The cognitive tasks were presented at study initiation and at yearly intervals for 3 years. The authors chose to use the results at 1 year as their primary outcome to assess the impact of supplementation during the period when adherence would be highest.

Results. At baseline, the placebo cohort recalled 7.2 words of 20 compared with 7.1 in the supplement group. In both groups there was a practice effect, with improvement in scores in the placebo group to 7.65 words and in the multivitamin group to 7.81 words. The improvement from baseline was statistically significantly better (0.71 words) in the multivitamin cohort than in the placebo group (0.45 words). There was no improvement in either group in the ModRey memory retention test (ability to recall the words after 15 minutes) or in the ModBent or Flanker tests. At 3 years of treatment, the placebo group improved by 0.92 words (SD, 3.22) whereas the multivitamin group improved by 1.13 words (SD, 3.39). These changes remained statistically significant.

The group with cardiovascular disease had lower baseline performance on the ModRey test. With supplementation, however, the improvement in this cohort was significantly greater than in those without cardiovascular disease at 1 year. The authors acknowledged that the changes were small and may not have been noticeable to the individuals, but they argued that even small changes as demonstrated in this study can have large health benefits at a population level.

The results of the COSMOS-Web trial corroborate the findings of the COSMOS-Mind study with respect to the benefits of multivitamin/mineral supplementation on cognitive test performance, particularly in a population with preexisting cardiovascular disease. The tests used across the 2 studies were different, which lends greater reliability to the findings.

Study strengths and limitations

A major strength of this study is its careful, rigorous design as a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in a large patient population. Great care was devoted to ensuring study medication adherence. Another strength is that the cognitive tests chosen for the COSMOS-Web trial have been validated in cognitively normal populations, not those already impaired.

A limitation, however, is in the demographics of the study. The patient population was overwhelmingly White (93%), 67% were female, and they were well educated (94.8% having completed some college or beyond). Their baseline health was good; only 4.7% had a history of cardiovascular disease. Although generalizability of the study results from this population may be concerning,relative benefits of supplementation in this healthy, generally well-nourished and educated group may be lower than might be expected in a more nutritionally and educationally challenged population.

Finally, the difference between the placebo and active supplementation groups was small. Whether this less-than-1-word difference in immediate memory recall is noticeable by a patient is questionable. Both groups improved in their test performance over time—a consequence of serial cognitive tests of any kind. Although the authors calculated that the difference in recall translates to a 3-year reduction in age-related memory decline, it is hard to reconcile that with the fact that both groups actually improved over the 3 years of the study. ●

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, NCMP, for her assistance in evaluating the study.