WASHINGTON – For patients with diabetes, there are trade-offs for selecting a percutaneous intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main artery disease when either can be considered, according to a hypothesis-generating pooled analysis.

The pooled data from four trials indicate that either method of revascularization is “reasonable,” but risk of myocardial infarction and revascularization is higher and risk of stroke is lower in patients with diabetes following PCI relative to CABG, Prakriti Gaba, MD, said in presenting the analysis at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Despite decades of advances in both PCI and CABG, the findings are remarkably similar to those of Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST), the first major study to compare PCI to CABG, which were published almost 30 years ago. In the new analysis, like in EAST, PCI and CABG were comparable for a primary composite endpoint overall, but patients with diabetes were the exception. In those, outcomes were modestly better after CABG, said Dr. Gaba, a cardiology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“More and more I am hearing from practitioners that diabetes does not matter, but what I get from your data is that diabetes still matters,” said Spencer B. King, MD, a pioneer of PCI affiliated with Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. King, the first author of the 1994 paper and a panelist in the late-breaking trial session where the new data were presented, pointed out that a relatively limited proportion of patients with diabetes are equally suitable for PCI and CABG because of other considerations. However, he said an updated look once again suggesting that PCI and CABG are not equivalent for left main lesions in patients with diabetes “is helpful to see.”
 

CABG traditionally preferred for left main revascularization

The issue was revisited because CABG has been preferred traditionally for left main disease, but there was increasing evidence that PCI is associated with similar survival, according to Dr. Gaba. These new data support that contention, even if it shows that outcomes are not the same in those with diabetes relative to those without.

In this pooled analysis, data were drawn from four trials. Each compared PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG in patients that were considered suitable for either. From the four trials, the numbers in this analysis included 705 patients from SYNTAX, 600 patients from PRECOMBAT, 1,184 patients from NOBLE, and 1,905 patients from EXCEL.

The focus was on the 1,104 patients with diabetes relative to the 3,289 without. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 5 years. The multiple secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, stroke, and revascularization.

Overall, the 5-year mortality, independent of revascularization procedure, was 14.8% for those with diabetes and 9.3% for those without (P < .001). For this endpoint, the rates were numerically lower but not statistically different for CABG whether patients had diabetes (14.1% vs. 15.3%) or no diabetes (8.9% vs. 9.7%).

However, the rate of spontaneous MI was twice as great with PCI than with CABG for those with diabetes (8.9% vs. 4.4%), which doubled the hazard ratio within significant confidence intervals (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35). The rates of revascularization were also about twice as great with PCI than with CABG (24.5% vs. 12.4%), again producing a twofold increase in risk (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87).

For stroke in patients with diabetes, there was no difference in events at 5 years for PCI relative to CABG (2.1% in both groups). However, in those without diabetes, a trend approaching significance favored CABG over PCI (1.2% vs. 2.1%; HR, 0.177; 95% CI, 0.99-1.77). This difference was concentrated in the first year, when stroke rates among those treated with CABG were more than double the rates among those treated with PCI. Over time, this difference dissipated so that the difference was reduced to a trend at the end of follow-up.
 

Data considered hypothesis generating

Although patients with diabetes were prespecified as a subgroup of interest in these studies, Dr. Gaba said that the data can only be considered hypothesis generating and pointed out several limitations, including the fact that these studies preceded some therapies, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, that are known to affect CV outcomes.

However, Dr. King was not alone in suggesting that these data once again show that diabetes matters. Several panelists agreed, including the moderator of the session, Robert A Byrne, MBBcH, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin.

“Of course, there has been a lot of discussion over the last 4 or 5 years about this issue since the long-term EXCEL data were presented,” Dr. Byrne said. He added that the team of investigators who put this together “have done a great service to the community” by providing a detailed combined analysis to explore the interaction between diabetes and outcomes relative to method of revascularization. Although PCI and CABG are not always equivalent choices for reasons other than diabetes, he echoed the sentiment that diabetes likely remains a variable to consider when considering revascularization of left main artery disease.

Dr. Gabi, Dr. Spencer, and Dr. Byrne report no potential conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON – For patients with diabetes, there are trade-offs for selecting a percutaneous intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main artery disease when either can be considered, according to a hypothesis-generating pooled analysis.

The pooled data from four trials indicate that either method of revascularization is “reasonable,” but risk of myocardial infarction and revascularization is higher and risk of stroke is lower in patients with diabetes following PCI relative to CABG, Prakriti Gaba, MD, said in presenting the analysis at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Despite decades of advances in both PCI and CABG, the findings are remarkably similar to those of Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST), the first major study to compare PCI to CABG, which were published almost 30 years ago. In the new analysis, like in EAST, PCI and CABG were comparable for a primary composite endpoint overall, but patients with diabetes were the exception. In those, outcomes were modestly better after CABG, said Dr. Gaba, a cardiology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“More and more I am hearing from practitioners that diabetes does not matter, but what I get from your data is that diabetes still matters,” said Spencer B. King, MD, a pioneer of PCI affiliated with Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. King, the first author of the 1994 paper and a panelist in the late-breaking trial session where the new data were presented, pointed out that a relatively limited proportion of patients with diabetes are equally suitable for PCI and CABG because of other considerations. However, he said an updated look once again suggesting that PCI and CABG are not equivalent for left main lesions in patients with diabetes “is helpful to see.”
 

CABG traditionally preferred for left main revascularization

The issue was revisited because CABG has been preferred traditionally for left main disease, but there was increasing evidence that PCI is associated with similar survival, according to Dr. Gaba. These new data support that contention, even if it shows that outcomes are not the same in those with diabetes relative to those without.

In this pooled analysis, data were drawn from four trials. Each compared PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG in patients that were considered suitable for either. From the four trials, the numbers in this analysis included 705 patients from SYNTAX, 600 patients from PRECOMBAT, 1,184 patients from NOBLE, and 1,905 patients from EXCEL.

The focus was on the 1,104 patients with diabetes relative to the 3,289 without. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 5 years. The multiple secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, stroke, and revascularization.

Overall, the 5-year mortality, independent of revascularization procedure, was 14.8% for those with diabetes and 9.3% for those without (P < .001). For this endpoint, the rates were numerically lower but not statistically different for CABG whether patients had diabetes (14.1% vs. 15.3%) or no diabetes (8.9% vs. 9.7%).

However, the rate of spontaneous MI was twice as great with PCI than with CABG for those with diabetes (8.9% vs. 4.4%), which doubled the hazard ratio within significant confidence intervals (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35). The rates of revascularization were also about twice as great with PCI than with CABG (24.5% vs. 12.4%), again producing a twofold increase in risk (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87).

For stroke in patients with diabetes, there was no difference in events at 5 years for PCI relative to CABG (2.1% in both groups). However, in those without diabetes, a trend approaching significance favored CABG over PCI (1.2% vs. 2.1%; HR, 0.177; 95% CI, 0.99-1.77). This difference was concentrated in the first year, when stroke rates among those treated with CABG were more than double the rates among those treated with PCI. Over time, this difference dissipated so that the difference was reduced to a trend at the end of follow-up.
 

Data considered hypothesis generating

Although patients with diabetes were prespecified as a subgroup of interest in these studies, Dr. Gaba said that the data can only be considered hypothesis generating and pointed out several limitations, including the fact that these studies preceded some therapies, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, that are known to affect CV outcomes.

However, Dr. King was not alone in suggesting that these data once again show that diabetes matters. Several panelists agreed, including the moderator of the session, Robert A Byrne, MBBcH, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin.

“Of course, there has been a lot of discussion over the last 4 or 5 years about this issue since the long-term EXCEL data were presented,” Dr. Byrne said. He added that the team of investigators who put this together “have done a great service to the community” by providing a detailed combined analysis to explore the interaction between diabetes and outcomes relative to method of revascularization. Although PCI and CABG are not always equivalent choices for reasons other than diabetes, he echoed the sentiment that diabetes likely remains a variable to consider when considering revascularization of left main artery disease.

Dr. Gabi, Dr. Spencer, and Dr. Byrne report no potential conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON – For patients with diabetes, there are trade-offs for selecting a percutaneous intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main artery disease when either can be considered, according to a hypothesis-generating pooled analysis.

The pooled data from four trials indicate that either method of revascularization is “reasonable,” but risk of myocardial infarction and revascularization is higher and risk of stroke is lower in patients with diabetes following PCI relative to CABG, Prakriti Gaba, MD, said in presenting the analysis at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Despite decades of advances in both PCI and CABG, the findings are remarkably similar to those of Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST), the first major study to compare PCI to CABG, which were published almost 30 years ago. In the new analysis, like in EAST, PCI and CABG were comparable for a primary composite endpoint overall, but patients with diabetes were the exception. In those, outcomes were modestly better after CABG, said Dr. Gaba, a cardiology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“More and more I am hearing from practitioners that diabetes does not matter, but what I get from your data is that diabetes still matters,” said Spencer B. King, MD, a pioneer of PCI affiliated with Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. King, the first author of the 1994 paper and a panelist in the late-breaking trial session where the new data were presented, pointed out that a relatively limited proportion of patients with diabetes are equally suitable for PCI and CABG because of other considerations. However, he said an updated look once again suggesting that PCI and CABG are not equivalent for left main lesions in patients with diabetes “is helpful to see.”
 

CABG traditionally preferred for left main revascularization

The issue was revisited because CABG has been preferred traditionally for left main disease, but there was increasing evidence that PCI is associated with similar survival, according to Dr. Gaba. These new data support that contention, even if it shows that outcomes are not the same in those with diabetes relative to those without.

In this pooled analysis, data were drawn from four trials. Each compared PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG in patients that were considered suitable for either. From the four trials, the numbers in this analysis included 705 patients from SYNTAX, 600 patients from PRECOMBAT, 1,184 patients from NOBLE, and 1,905 patients from EXCEL.

The focus was on the 1,104 patients with diabetes relative to the 3,289 without. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 5 years. The multiple secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, stroke, and revascularization.

Overall, the 5-year mortality, independent of revascularization procedure, was 14.8% for those with diabetes and 9.3% for those without (P < .001). For this endpoint, the rates were numerically lower but not statistically different for CABG whether patients had diabetes (14.1% vs. 15.3%) or no diabetes (8.9% vs. 9.7%).

However, the rate of spontaneous MI was twice as great with PCI than with CABG for those with diabetes (8.9% vs. 4.4%), which doubled the hazard ratio within significant confidence intervals (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35). The rates of revascularization were also about twice as great with PCI than with CABG (24.5% vs. 12.4%), again producing a twofold increase in risk (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87).

For stroke in patients with diabetes, there was no difference in events at 5 years for PCI relative to CABG (2.1% in both groups). However, in those without diabetes, a trend approaching significance favored CABG over PCI (1.2% vs. 2.1%; HR, 0.177; 95% CI, 0.99-1.77). This difference was concentrated in the first year, when stroke rates among those treated with CABG were more than double the rates among those treated with PCI. Over time, this difference dissipated so that the difference was reduced to a trend at the end of follow-up.
 

Data considered hypothesis generating

Although patients with diabetes were prespecified as a subgroup of interest in these studies, Dr. Gaba said that the data can only be considered hypothesis generating and pointed out several limitations, including the fact that these studies preceded some therapies, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, that are known to affect CV outcomes.

However, Dr. King was not alone in suggesting that these data once again show that diabetes matters. Several panelists agreed, including the moderator of the session, Robert A Byrne, MBBcH, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin.

“Of course, there has been a lot of discussion over the last 4 or 5 years about this issue since the long-term EXCEL data were presented,” Dr. Byrne said. He added that the team of investigators who put this together “have done a great service to the community” by providing a detailed combined analysis to explore the interaction between diabetes and outcomes relative to method of revascularization. Although PCI and CABG are not always equivalent choices for reasons other than diabetes, he echoed the sentiment that diabetes likely remains a variable to consider when considering revascularization of left main artery disease.

Dr. Gabi, Dr. Spencer, and Dr. Byrne report no potential conflicts of interest.

Do you use nonpharmacologic approaches to treat your patients living with migraines? Which ones do you prefer?
I always like to start with nonpharmacologic approaches (also termed bio-behavioral approaches) with my patients. I talk to patients about sleep hygiene because if they don't sleep well, they're going to have more headaches. Most of my patients have issues with sleep and rarely feel refreshed in the morning. Most of them have middle insomnia; they wake up between 2 am and 4 am and cannot get back to sleep.

I also talk to my patients about eating properly. If patients don't eat on time or miss a meal, they often get headaches.  While timing is probably more critical, what they eat is important also. Poor diet can lead to decreased energy, and patients can become obese. Obesity impacts headache—especially migraine. I am not sure if there are any particularly good or bad foods for migraine patients, but in general, they should eat fewer fatty foods, fewer carbohydrates, more chicken, and fish than red meat, and a lot of fruits, vegetables, salads, nuts, and whole grains. A good trick is to limit the volume of each meal; do not go back for seconds and limit desserts and alcohol. 

Exercise is beneficial to decrease headaches, and the converse is even more true. Patients should start with low-impact, brief exercise like short walks and slowly build up to 20 minutes of cardio as tolerated, 3 to 5 times per week. Like poor diet choices, a sedentary lifestyle can lead to obesity and then not doing well with headaches and so on. 

What are your goals for treating your patients at the start of a migraine attack?

The goals for treating a migraine attack are to reduce the intensity of the pain quickly and, if possible, make the patient pain-free in ≤2 hours. We also try to reduce their most bothersome symptom, which is usually sensitivity to light or nausea, without causing any adverse effects from the treatment. Possibly as important, we want to get the patient back to functioning at work or at home, so they need no further treatment for that attack.

Unfortunately, many of the medicines we have available do cause adverse events, which are sometimes worse than the headache itself.  A patient can't continue to take a medication that causes significant side effects.

It is also critical to stop the headache quickly, as we don't want patients to take the prescribed acute care medicine and then, if they don’t feel like it’s working, proceed to take aspirin and then acetaminophen and then an anti-inflammatory tablet. The more medicine they take, the more likely they'll get medication overuse headache (MOH).  

MOH is not a great name, but it does imply that patients are taking one or many medications per week to stop their headaches, not realizing that this can worsen and prolong their headaches rather than helping them. They can also experience adverse events from taking so much medication. 

Finally, we want the patients to get rid of a headache so that they do not need to go to an emergency room, and we want to use medication that is cost effective and gets the patient functioning. Some medicines and devices are extremely expensive and not well covered by insurance companies but imagine the patient who takes a new medicine or uses a new device and gets better rapidly. If they hadn't done that, they may have lost a day or 2 of pay from missing work, or they might have gone to work and not done a very effective job because they were feeling miserable and couldn’t think or speak well. 

Do you prescribe triptans?

Definitely. The triptans first became available 30 years ago. There are 7 different triptans, and some work better for some patients than others. They come in tablets, injections, and nasal sprays. Sometimes patients need to try 2 or 3 different triptans to see which one is the most effective for them. If a patient has no success with tablets, there's a possibility that an injection or even a nasal spray would be more effective.
There are 2 triptans available as a nasal spray. I happen to like a triptan nasal spray called zolmitriptan, which usually works faster with fewer adverse events than the tablets.

There's also an injection of sumatriptan available, which is the fastest way to get relief from a triptan. Patients usually don't prefer it because it is an injection that they give themselves via an auto injector, and it may hurt and can be a bit complex to administer. There are definitely more adverse events when sumatriptan is given by injection, but because an injection can deliver very fast results that stop the headache reliably, some patients prefer it.

Triptans have been the mainstay treatment to stop an ongoing migraine attack for 30 years. We have always known there is some constriction of blood vessels and triptan-related side effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and tingling sensations, so not every patient can take them. The newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) do not constrict blood vessels and have fewer adverse events but cost a lot more if not covered by insurance.

Another newer, nontriptan nasal spray is dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate for acute care. It is one of the best medications to use if the patient’s migraine has been going on for 24 hours, as it tends to work well for a long-lasting headache. It also works for a long period, giving the patient a rest before their next attack. A nasal spray works faster than a tablet form, as the medication is absorbed from the nasal mucosa and does not have to make its way through the GI tract, then to the liver for metabolism, and finally, up to the brain before it begins to work. There can be some side effects in the nose such as discomfort or stuffiness, but if it works well, patients usually tolerate it. 

There's also a newer class of medicine called ditans. In a recent study, lasmiditan, which comes in a 50-mg and a 100-mg tablet for acute care of migraine, showed no vasoconstrictive effects, suggesting that ditans could be a safe option for patients living with chronic cardio- and cerebrovascular disease. Lasmiditan could be an alternative to triptans when they are contraindicated in patients with blood vessel disease, obesity, high blood pressure or cholesterol levels, or in nonresponsive patients. Lasmiditan does cause some dizziness and drowsiness, so patients cannot drive for 8 hours after taking it. However, it does have good efficacy.

When do you prescribe gepants?

Gepants are small-molecule CGRP receptor blockers. They are tablets that sit on the receptor, preventing the CGRP from docking on the receptor and increasing the headache during a migraine attack. There are 2 gepants that can be used to stop a headache that is just starting or in progress: ubrogepant and rimegepant. 

Ubrogepant is a regular tablet that is available in 50-mg or 100-mg strengths. If the first dose does not make a patient pain free, a second dose is recommended about 2 hours later. Rimegepant is a meltaway tablet and only comes in a 75-mg strength. It should be taken early in the attack, and usually the patient does not need further treatment that day. If they do, they need to switch to another treatment, as rimegepant should not be repeated that day. Rimegepant may be used for both acute care and prevention. It is the only tablet that can be used for both. 

Both drugs have been shown to provide pain freedom for about 20% of patients at 2 hours, which is statistically better than the patients that received the placebo. These drugs generally don’t cause many adverse events but can cause a little nausea or drowsiness in some patients. Ubrogepant has a few contraindications; patients on certain medications such as antibiotics or antifungals cannot take it. If a patient is not doing well on a triptan or should not be given a drug that constricts blood vessels, I often switch them to one of these gepants (if covered by insurance). Both drugs have a plan to let the patient try them at a low cost. 

How are the gepants used acutely?

Gepants are used just like a triptan. As soon as the patient has a migraine headache starting, they take either ubrogepant or rimegepant as quickly as possible. Some patients say they feel the gepant begin to work within an hour or less, and some patients say it doesn't work at all, so I have them try the other gepant. 

Gepants are probably a better option than triptans if the patient is >40 years because triptans can constrict blood vessels. Older patients, and certainly those who have any kind of cardiac or cerebral blood vessel issues or even peripheral blood vessel disease, should not be given triptans.

When do you consider using preventive treatment in migraine?

If a patient has ≥4 moderate-to-severe headache days a month, or fewer with severe disability, or does not respond to acute care medications or those drugs are contraindicated, I consider giving them preventive therapy for migraine. The goal is to decrease the number of migraine days per month and to decrease the intensity, duration, and disability of the attacks.

Which gepants can you use for prevention of migraine?

I discussed rimegepant as an acute care medication, but the same 75-mg meltaway tablet given every other day works preventively to decrease the number of headaches. I like it, as it has few adverse events—<3% of patients experience nausea and abdominal pain—and it can also be used to stop a headache on days the patient did not take a tablet.

Atogepant is a newer, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved gepant taken once daily by mouth for prevention of migraine, and it works to decrease headache days per month. It has more side effects than the other gepants, including constipation, drowsiness, and nausea. If a patient does not have many adverse events while taking it, it is a good migraine preventive. 

How do you feel about monoclonal antibodies that bind to CGRP or its receptor for migraine preventive treatment?

Before the gepants became available, 4 different pharmaceutical companies were making monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that bind to either CGRP or its receptor. This class of medication can be quite effective for most patients needing migraine prevention, as these medications last for a long time if the patient keeps taking it. 

Antibodies, when injected, continue to work for 1 to 3 months, making them perfect for migraine prevention, but they must be given either by the patient using an autoinjector with a tiny needle or by intravenous (IV) infusion in a hospital or office. They tend to be quite effective and have few adverse events.  

The first one to come out was erenumab, then frenanezumab, and galcanezumab. The newest one is eptinezumab, given by IV infusion over 30 minutes. Erenumab is the only mAb that sits on the receptor to prevent the CGRP from docking on the receptor, and it's the only one that seems to cause adverse events such as constipation and increased blood pressure in some patients. Eptinezumab is the only drug in this category given by IV infusion; patients must come to the office to receive the injection every 3 months. Even though eptinezumab is a powerful drug, I find that patients generally don't like coming in for IV treatment. I reserve it for when a patient has failed several other preventive treatments. The other 3 drugs (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab) are subcutaneous injections that the patient can self-administer at home. Fremanezumab can be taken once a month or once every 3 months, depending on the dose prescribed. 

What migraine devices do you like to prescribe?

The device that I tend to have my patients use is called Nerivio®; it has been cleared by the FDA for acute treatment of migraine in patients ≥12 years. An article was just published in the journal Headache on its use in prevention of migraine. The company expects the FDA to clear it very soon for prevention when used for 45 minutes every other day.

Nerivio® is an electrical stimulator that is placed on the upper arm like a blood pressure cuff. It is battery-powered and links to an app on a smartphone. I have my patients turn it up slowly to a higher gain, and when they feel a slight discomfort, they lower down until they do not feel it. That's where I recommend that they keep it for 45 minutes of treatment, starting at the beginning of a migraine attack. 

Nerivio® also has a behavioral medicine program incorporated into the smartphone app that lasts for 25 minutes. While the patient is receiving the 45 minutes of electrical stimulation, they are also being guided through relaxation techniques to help ease the headache. The company has done a controlled study comparing the efficacy of Nerivio® with and without the behavioral treatment and found that the 2 together are more effective than Nerivio® alone. 

The early double-blind studies of this device, as sent to the FDA for clearance, have excellent efficacy data with very few adverse events. Thus, it is used by many patients. The company has arranged a lower cost for the first month of treatment so a patient can see whether the device is effective.

There's also a device called Relivion®, which is worn like a tiara on the head to stimulate 4 nerves above the eyebrows that are part of the trigeminal system and 2 in the back of the head that affect the occipital nerves.

One of the earliest devices to launch is the gammaCore vagal nerve stimulator. It is handheld and controlled by the patient. It is placed on the front and side of the neck in the region of the vagal nerve. For acute care of migraine, the patient stimulates for 2 minutes and then waits several minutes before repeating 2 minutes of treatment. If you want to prescribe it for the prevention of migraine, a patient could do this sequence twice per day. It has been approved for acute care and prevention of migraine and, along with other medication for cluster headaches, it is easy to use and approved for almost any kind of headache. Unfortunately, it is extremely expensive for patients and is not covered well by insurance unless the patient is a veteran or goes to a Veterans Health Administration hospital for care. 

There are a few other devices that also work for migraine. Most electrical stimulation devices are costly, but we do hope that insurance companies will begin to cover them soon. Most devices cause few adverse events, have few contraindications, and will be used more as they become more affordable.

Can you summarize migraine treatment for us in one paragraph?

No, but I will try. We have many acute care treatments for migraine that are effective. Some, such as the triptans, do constrict blood vessels, and certain patients should not be taking medications that affect blood vessels. Some medications cause certain side effects or take too long to work, and we have other options for those patients. If a patient has ≥4 headache days per month or fewer associated with a lot of disability, we need to consider prevention. We have older preventives such as beta blockers and epilepsy medications, which are less expensive and can work but usually have many side effects. Now we have 4 mAbs that bind to CGRP or its receptor, which work well for a month or more with few adverse events. We also have 2 oral gepants for prevention. When you add in several devices, I have so many options for my patients today that I am a lucky neurologist, and my patients are even luckier!

Do you use nonpharmacologic approaches to treat your patients living with migraines? Which ones do you prefer?
I always like to start with nonpharmacologic approaches (also termed bio-behavioral approaches) with my patients. I talk to patients about sleep hygiene because if they don't sleep well, they're going to have more headaches. Most of my patients have issues with sleep and rarely feel refreshed in the morning. Most of them have middle insomnia; they wake up between 2 am and 4 am and cannot get back to sleep.

I also talk to my patients about eating properly. If patients don't eat on time or miss a meal, they often get headaches.  While timing is probably more critical, what they eat is important also. Poor diet can lead to decreased energy, and patients can become obese. Obesity impacts headache—especially migraine. I am not sure if there are any particularly good or bad foods for migraine patients, but in general, they should eat fewer fatty foods, fewer carbohydrates, more chicken, and fish than red meat, and a lot of fruits, vegetables, salads, nuts, and whole grains. A good trick is to limit the volume of each meal; do not go back for seconds and limit desserts and alcohol. 

Exercise is beneficial to decrease headaches, and the converse is even more true. Patients should start with low-impact, brief exercise like short walks and slowly build up to 20 minutes of cardio as tolerated, 3 to 5 times per week. Like poor diet choices, a sedentary lifestyle can lead to obesity and then not doing well with headaches and so on. 

What are your goals for treating your patients at the start of a migraine attack?

The goals for treating a migraine attack are to reduce the intensity of the pain quickly and, if possible, make the patient pain-free in ≤2 hours. We also try to reduce their most bothersome symptom, which is usually sensitivity to light or nausea, without causing any adverse effects from the treatment. Possibly as important, we want to get the patient back to functioning at work or at home, so they need no further treatment for that attack.

Unfortunately, many of the medicines we have available do cause adverse events, which are sometimes worse than the headache itself.  A patient can't continue to take a medication that causes significant side effects.

It is also critical to stop the headache quickly, as we don't want patients to take the prescribed acute care medicine and then, if they don’t feel like it’s working, proceed to take aspirin and then acetaminophen and then an anti-inflammatory tablet. The more medicine they take, the more likely they'll get medication overuse headache (MOH).  

MOH is not a great name, but it does imply that patients are taking one or many medications per week to stop their headaches, not realizing that this can worsen and prolong their headaches rather than helping them. They can also experience adverse events from taking so much medication. 

Finally, we want the patients to get rid of a headache so that they do not need to go to an emergency room, and we want to use medication that is cost effective and gets the patient functioning. Some medicines and devices are extremely expensive and not well covered by insurance companies but imagine the patient who takes a new medicine or uses a new device and gets better rapidly. If they hadn't done that, they may have lost a day or 2 of pay from missing work, or they might have gone to work and not done a very effective job because they were feeling miserable and couldn’t think or speak well. 

Do you prescribe triptans?

Definitely. The triptans first became available 30 years ago. There are 7 different triptans, and some work better for some patients than others. They come in tablets, injections, and nasal sprays. Sometimes patients need to try 2 or 3 different triptans to see which one is the most effective for them. If a patient has no success with tablets, there's a possibility that an injection or even a nasal spray would be more effective.
There are 2 triptans available as a nasal spray. I happen to like a triptan nasal spray called zolmitriptan, which usually works faster with fewer adverse events than the tablets.

There's also an injection of sumatriptan available, which is the fastest way to get relief from a triptan. Patients usually don't prefer it because it is an injection that they give themselves via an auto injector, and it may hurt and can be a bit complex to administer. There are definitely more adverse events when sumatriptan is given by injection, but because an injection can deliver very fast results that stop the headache reliably, some patients prefer it.

Triptans have been the mainstay treatment to stop an ongoing migraine attack for 30 years. We have always known there is some constriction of blood vessels and triptan-related side effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and tingling sensations, so not every patient can take them. The newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) do not constrict blood vessels and have fewer adverse events but cost a lot more if not covered by insurance.

Another newer, nontriptan nasal spray is dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate for acute care. It is one of the best medications to use if the patient’s migraine has been going on for 24 hours, as it tends to work well for a long-lasting headache. It also works for a long period, giving the patient a rest before their next attack. A nasal spray works faster than a tablet form, as the medication is absorbed from the nasal mucosa and does not have to make its way through the GI tract, then to the liver for metabolism, and finally, up to the brain before it begins to work. There can be some side effects in the nose such as discomfort or stuffiness, but if it works well, patients usually tolerate it. 

There's also a newer class of medicine called ditans. In a recent study, lasmiditan, which comes in a 50-mg and a 100-mg tablet for acute care of migraine, showed no vasoconstrictive effects, suggesting that ditans could be a safe option for patients living with chronic cardio- and cerebrovascular disease. Lasmiditan could be an alternative to triptans when they are contraindicated in patients with blood vessel disease, obesity, high blood pressure or cholesterol levels, or in nonresponsive patients. Lasmiditan does cause some dizziness and drowsiness, so patients cannot drive for 8 hours after taking it. However, it does have good efficacy.

When do you prescribe gepants?

Gepants are small-molecule CGRP receptor blockers. They are tablets that sit on the receptor, preventing the CGRP from docking on the receptor and increasing the headache during a migraine attack. There are 2 gepants that can be used to stop a headache that is just starting or in progress: ubrogepant and rimegepant. 

Ubrogepant is a regular tablet that is available in 50-mg or 100-mg strengths. If the first dose does not make a patient pain free, a second dose is recommended about 2 hours later. Rimegepant is a meltaway tablet and only comes in a 75-mg strength. It should be taken early in the attack, and usually the patient does not need further treatment that day. If they do, they need to switch to another treatment, as rimegepant should not be repeated that day. Rimegepant may be used for both acute care and prevention. It is the only tablet that can be used for both. 

Both drugs have been shown to provide pain freedom for about 20% of patients at 2 hours, which is statistically better than the patients that received the placebo. These drugs generally don’t cause many adverse events but can cause a little nausea or drowsiness in some patients. Ubrogepant has a few contraindications; patients on certain medications such as antibiotics or antifungals cannot take it. If a patient is not doing well on a triptan or should not be given a drug that constricts blood vessels, I often switch them to one of these gepants (if covered by insurance). Both drugs have a plan to let the patient try them at a low cost. 

How are the gepants used acutely?

Gepants are used just like a triptan. As soon as the patient has a migraine headache starting, they take either ubrogepant or rimegepant as quickly as possible. Some patients say they feel the gepant begin to work within an hour or less, and some patients say it doesn't work at all, so I have them try the other gepant. 

Gepants are probably a better option than triptans if the patient is >40 years because triptans can constrict blood vessels. Older patients, and certainly those who have any kind of cardiac or cerebral blood vessel issues or even peripheral blood vessel disease, should not be given triptans.

When do you consider using preventive treatment in migraine?

If a patient has ≥4 moderate-to-severe headache days a month, or fewer with severe disability, or does not respond to acute care medications or those drugs are contraindicated, I consider giving them preventive therapy for migraine. The goal is to decrease the number of migraine days per month and to decrease the intensity, duration, and disability of the attacks.

Which gepants can you use for prevention of migraine?

I discussed rimegepant as an acute care medication, but the same 75-mg meltaway tablet given every other day works preventively to decrease the number of headaches. I like it, as it has few adverse events—<3% of patients experience nausea and abdominal pain—and it can also be used to stop a headache on days the patient did not take a tablet.

Atogepant is a newer, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved gepant taken once daily by mouth for prevention of migraine, and it works to decrease headache days per month. It has more side effects than the other gepants, including constipation, drowsiness, and nausea. If a patient does not have many adverse events while taking it, it is a good migraine preventive. 

How do you feel about monoclonal antibodies that bind to CGRP or its receptor for migraine preventive treatment?

Before the gepants became available, 4 different pharmaceutical companies were making monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that bind to either CGRP or its receptor. This class of medication can be quite effective for most patients needing migraine prevention, as these medications last for a long time if the patient keeps taking it. 

Antibodies, when injected, continue to work for 1 to 3 months, making them perfect for migraine prevention, but they must be given either by the patient using an autoinjector with a tiny needle or by intravenous (IV) infusion in a hospital or office. They tend to be quite effective and have few adverse events.  

The first one to come out was erenumab, then frenanezumab, and galcanezumab. The newest one is eptinezumab, given by IV infusion over 30 minutes. Erenumab is the only mAb that sits on the receptor to prevent the CGRP from docking on the receptor, and it's the only one that seems to cause adverse events such as constipation and increased blood pressure in some patients. Eptinezumab is the only drug in this category given by IV infusion; patients must come to the office to receive the injection every 3 months. Even though eptinezumab is a powerful drug, I find that patients generally don't like coming in for IV treatment. I reserve it for when a patient has failed several other preventive treatments. The other 3 drugs (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab) are subcutaneous injections that the patient can self-administer at home. Fremanezumab can be taken once a month or once every 3 months, depending on the dose prescribed. 

What migraine devices do you like to prescribe?

The device that I tend to have my patients use is called Nerivio®; it has been cleared by the FDA for acute treatment of migraine in patients ≥12 years. An article was just published in the journal Headache on its use in prevention of migraine. The company expects the FDA to clear it very soon for prevention when used for 45 minutes every other day.

Nerivio® is an electrical stimulator that is placed on the upper arm like a blood pressure cuff. It is battery-powered and links to an app on a smartphone. I have my patients turn it up slowly to a higher gain, and when they feel a slight discomfort, they lower down until they do not feel it. That's where I recommend that they keep it for 45 minutes of treatment, starting at the beginning of a migraine attack. 

Nerivio® also has a behavioral medicine program incorporated into the smartphone app that lasts for 25 minutes. While the patient is receiving the 45 minutes of electrical stimulation, they are also being guided through relaxation techniques to help ease the headache. The company has done a controlled study comparing the efficacy of Nerivio® with and without the behavioral treatment and found that the 2 together are more effective than Nerivio® alone. 

The early double-blind studies of this device, as sent to the FDA for clearance, have excellent efficacy data with very few adverse events. Thus, it is used by many patients. The company has arranged a lower cost for the first month of treatment so a patient can see whether the device is effective.

There's also a device called Relivion®, which is worn like a tiara on the head to stimulate 4 nerves above the eyebrows that are part of the trigeminal system and 2 in the back of the head that affect the occipital nerves.

One of the earliest devices to launch is the gammaCore vagal nerve stimulator. It is handheld and controlled by the patient. It is placed on the front and side of the neck in the region of the vagal nerve. For acute care of migraine, the patient stimulates for 2 minutes and then waits several minutes before repeating 2 minutes of treatment. If you want to prescribe it for the prevention of migraine, a patient could do this sequence twice per day. It has been approved for acute care and prevention of migraine and, along with other medication for cluster headaches, it is easy to use and approved for almost any kind of headache. Unfortunately, it is extremely expensive for patients and is not covered well by insurance unless the patient is a veteran or goes to a Veterans Health Administration hospital for care. 

There are a few other devices that also work for migraine. Most electrical stimulation devices are costly, but we do hope that insurance companies will begin to cover them soon. Most devices cause few adverse events, have few contraindications, and will be used more as they become more affordable.

Can you summarize migraine treatment for us in one paragraph?

No, but I will try. We have many acute care treatments for migraine that are effective. Some, such as the triptans, do constrict blood vessels, and certain patients should not be taking medications that affect blood vessels. Some medications cause certain side effects or take too long to work, and we have other options for those patients. If a patient has ≥4 headache days per month or fewer associated with a lot of disability, we need to consider prevention. We have older preventives such as beta blockers and epilepsy medications, which are less expensive and can work but usually have many side effects. Now we have 4 mAbs that bind to CGRP or its receptor, which work well for a month or more with few adverse events. We also have 2 oral gepants for prevention. When you add in several devices, I have so many options for my patients today that I am a lucky neurologist, and my patients are even luckier!

Do you use nonpharmacologic approaches to treat your patients living with migraines? Which ones do you prefer?
I always like to start with nonpharmacologic approaches (also termed bio-behavioral approaches) with my patients. I talk to patients about sleep hygiene because if they don't sleep well, they're going to have more headaches. Most of my patients have issues with sleep and rarely feel refreshed in the morning. Most of them have middle insomnia; they wake up between 2 am and 4 am and cannot get back to sleep.

I also talk to my patients about eating properly. If patients don't eat on time or miss a meal, they often get headaches.  While timing is probably more critical, what they eat is important also. Poor diet can lead to decreased energy, and patients can become obese. Obesity impacts headache—especially migraine. I am not sure if there are any particularly good or bad foods for migraine patients, but in general, they should eat fewer fatty foods, fewer carbohydrates, more chicken, and fish than red meat, and a lot of fruits, vegetables, salads, nuts, and whole grains. A good trick is to limit the volume of each meal; do not go back for seconds and limit desserts and alcohol. 

Exercise is beneficial to decrease headaches, and the converse is even more true. Patients should start with low-impact, brief exercise like short walks and slowly build up to 20 minutes of cardio as tolerated, 3 to 5 times per week. Like poor diet choices, a sedentary lifestyle can lead to obesity and then not doing well with headaches and so on. 

What are your goals for treating your patients at the start of a migraine attack?

The goals for treating a migraine attack are to reduce the intensity of the pain quickly and, if possible, make the patient pain-free in ≤2 hours. We also try to reduce their most bothersome symptom, which is usually sensitivity to light or nausea, without causing any adverse effects from the treatment. Possibly as important, we want to get the patient back to functioning at work or at home, so they need no further treatment for that attack.

Unfortunately, many of the medicines we have available do cause adverse events, which are sometimes worse than the headache itself.  A patient can't continue to take a medication that causes significant side effects.

It is also critical to stop the headache quickly, as we don't want patients to take the prescribed acute care medicine and then, if they don’t feel like it’s working, proceed to take aspirin and then acetaminophen and then an anti-inflammatory tablet. The more medicine they take, the more likely they'll get medication overuse headache (MOH).  

MOH is not a great name, but it does imply that patients are taking one or many medications per week to stop their headaches, not realizing that this can worsen and prolong their headaches rather than helping them. They can also experience adverse events from taking so much medication. 

Finally, we want the patients to get rid of a headache so that they do not need to go to an emergency room, and we want to use medication that is cost effective and gets the patient functioning. Some medicines and devices are extremely expensive and not well covered by insurance companies but imagine the patient who takes a new medicine or uses a new device and gets better rapidly. If they hadn't done that, they may have lost a day or 2 of pay from missing work, or they might have gone to work and not done a very effective job because they were feeling miserable and couldn’t think or speak well. 

Do you prescribe triptans?

Definitely. The triptans first became available 30 years ago. There are 7 different triptans, and some work better for some patients than others. They come in tablets, injections, and nasal sprays. Sometimes patients need to try 2 or 3 different triptans to see which one is the most effective for them. If a patient has no success with tablets, there's a possibility that an injection or even a nasal spray would be more effective.
There are 2 triptans available as a nasal spray. I happen to like a triptan nasal spray called zolmitriptan, which usually works faster with fewer adverse events than the tablets.

There's also an injection of sumatriptan available, which is the fastest way to get relief from a triptan. Patients usually don't prefer it because it is an injection that they give themselves via an auto injector, and it may hurt and can be a bit complex to administer. There are definitely more adverse events when sumatriptan is given by injection, but because an injection can deliver very fast results that stop the headache reliably, some patients prefer it.

Triptans have been the mainstay treatment to stop an ongoing migraine attack for 30 years. We have always known there is some constriction of blood vessels and triptan-related side effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and tingling sensations, so not every patient can take them. The newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) do not constrict blood vessels and have fewer adverse events but cost a lot more if not covered by insurance.

Another newer, nontriptan nasal spray is dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate for acute care. It is one of the best medications to use if the patient’s migraine has been going on for 24 hours, as it tends to work well for a long-lasting headache. It also works for a long period, giving the patient a rest before their next attack. A nasal spray works faster than a tablet form, as the medication is absorbed from the nasal mucosa and does not have to make its way through the GI tract, then to the liver for metabolism, and finally, up to the brain before it begins to work. There can be some side effects in the nose such as discomfort or stuffiness, but if it works well, patients usually tolerate it. 

There's also a newer class of medicine called ditans. In a recent study, lasmiditan, which comes in a 50-mg and a 100-mg tablet for acute care of migraine, showed no vasoconstrictive effects, suggesting that ditans could be a safe option for patients living with chronic cardio- and cerebrovascular disease. Lasmiditan could be an alternative to triptans when they are contraindicated in patients with blood vessel disease, obesity, high blood pressure or cholesterol levels, or in nonresponsive patients. Lasmiditan does cause some dizziness and drowsiness, so patients cannot drive for 8 hours after taking it. However, it does have good efficacy.

When do you prescribe gepants?

Gepants are small-molecule CGRP receptor blockers. They are tablets that sit on the receptor, preventing the CGRP from docking on the receptor and increasing the headache during a migraine attack. There are 2 gepants that can be used to stop a headache that is just starting or in progress: ubrogepant and rimegepant. 

Ubrogepant is a regular tablet that is available in 50-mg or 100-mg strengths. If the first dose does not make a patient pain free, a second dose is recommended about 2 hours later. Rimegepant is a meltaway tablet and only comes in a 75-mg strength. It should be taken early in the attack, and usually the patient does not need further treatment that day. If they do, they need to switch to another treatment, as rimegepant should not be repeated that day. Rimegepant may be used for both acute care and prevention. It is the only tablet that can be used for both. 

Both drugs have been shown to provide pain freedom for about 20% of patients at 2 hours, which is statistically better than the patients that received the placebo. These drugs generally don’t cause many adverse events but can cause a little nausea or drowsiness in some patients. Ubrogepant has a few contraindications; patients on certain medications such as antibiotics or antifungals cannot take it. If a patient is not doing well on a triptan or should not be given a drug that constricts blood vessels, I often switch them to one of these gepants (if covered by insurance). Both drugs have a plan to let the patient try them at a low cost. 

How are the gepants used acutely?

Gepants are used just like a triptan. As soon as the patient has a migraine headache starting, they take either ubrogepant or rimegepant as quickly as possible. Some patients say they feel the gepant begin to work within an hour or less, and some patients say it doesn't work at all, so I have them try the other gepant. 

Gepants are probably a better option than triptans if the patient is >40 years because triptans can constrict blood vessels. Older patients, and certainly those who have any kind of cardiac or cerebral blood vessel issues or even peripheral blood vessel disease, should not be given triptans.

When do you consider using preventive treatment in migraine?

If a patient has ≥4 moderate-to-severe headache days a month, or fewer with severe disability, or does not respond to acute care medications or those drugs are contraindicated, I consider giving them preventive therapy for migraine. The goal is to decrease the number of migraine days per month and to decrease the intensity, duration, and disability of the attacks.

Which gepants can you use for prevention of migraine?

I discussed rimegepant as an acute care medication, but the same 75-mg meltaway tablet given every other day works preventively to decrease the number of headaches. I like it, as it has few adverse events—<3% of patients experience nausea and abdominal pain—and it can also be used to stop a headache on days the patient did not take a tablet.

Atogepant is a newer, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved gepant taken once daily by mouth for prevention of migraine, and it works to decrease headache days per month. It has more side effects than the other gepants, including constipation, drowsiness, and nausea. If a patient does not have many adverse events while taking it, it is a good migraine preventive. 

How do you feel about monoclonal antibodies that bind to CGRP or its receptor for migraine preventive treatment?

Before the gepants became available, 4 different pharmaceutical companies were making monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that bind to either CGRP or its receptor. This class of medication can be quite effective for most patients needing migraine prevention, as these medications last for a long time if the patient keeps taking it. 

Antibodies, when injected, continue to work for 1 to 3 months, making them perfect for migraine prevention, but they must be given either by the patient using an autoinjector with a tiny needle or by intravenous (IV) infusion in a hospital or office. They tend to be quite effective and have few adverse events.  

The first one to come out was erenumab, then frenanezumab, and galcanezumab. The newest one is eptinezumab, given by IV infusion over 30 minutes. Erenumab is the only mAb that sits on the receptor to prevent the CGRP from docking on the receptor, and it's the only one that seems to cause adverse events such as constipation and increased blood pressure in some patients. Eptinezumab is the only drug in this category given by IV infusion; patients must come to the office to receive the injection every 3 months. Even though eptinezumab is a powerful drug, I find that patients generally don't like coming in for IV treatment. I reserve it for when a patient has failed several other preventive treatments. The other 3 drugs (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab) are subcutaneous injections that the patient can self-administer at home. Fremanezumab can be taken once a month or once every 3 months, depending on the dose prescribed. 

What migraine devices do you like to prescribe?

The device that I tend to have my patients use is called Nerivio®; it has been cleared by the FDA for acute treatment of migraine in patients ≥12 years. An article was just published in the journal Headache on its use in prevention of migraine. The company expects the FDA to clear it very soon for prevention when used for 45 minutes every other day.

Nerivio® is an electrical stimulator that is placed on the upper arm like a blood pressure cuff. It is battery-powered and links to an app on a smartphone. I have my patients turn it up slowly to a higher gain, and when they feel a slight discomfort, they lower down until they do not feel it. That's where I recommend that they keep it for 45 minutes of treatment, starting at the beginning of a migraine attack. 

Nerivio® also has a behavioral medicine program incorporated into the smartphone app that lasts for 25 minutes. While the patient is receiving the 45 minutes of electrical stimulation, they are also being guided through relaxation techniques to help ease the headache. The company has done a controlled study comparing the efficacy of Nerivio® with and without the behavioral treatment and found that the 2 together are more effective than Nerivio® alone. 

The early double-blind studies of this device, as sent to the FDA for clearance, have excellent efficacy data with very few adverse events. Thus, it is used by many patients. The company has arranged a lower cost for the first month of treatment so a patient can see whether the device is effective.

There's also a device called Relivion®, which is worn like a tiara on the head to stimulate 4 nerves above the eyebrows that are part of the trigeminal system and 2 in the back of the head that affect the occipital nerves.

One of the earliest devices to launch is the gammaCore vagal nerve stimulator. It is handheld and controlled by the patient. It is placed on the front and side of the neck in the region of the vagal nerve. For acute care of migraine, the patient stimulates for 2 minutes and then waits several minutes before repeating 2 minutes of treatment. If you want to prescribe it for the prevention of migraine, a patient could do this sequence twice per day. It has been approved for acute care and prevention of migraine and, along with other medication for cluster headaches, it is easy to use and approved for almost any kind of headache. Unfortunately, it is extremely expensive for patients and is not covered well by insurance unless the patient is a veteran or goes to a Veterans Health Administration hospital for care. 

There are a few other devices that also work for migraine. Most electrical stimulation devices are costly, but we do hope that insurance companies will begin to cover them soon. Most devices cause few adverse events, have few contraindications, and will be used more as they become more affordable.

Can you summarize migraine treatment for us in one paragraph?

No, but I will try. We have many acute care treatments for migraine that are effective. Some, such as the triptans, do constrict blood vessels, and certain patients should not be taking medications that affect blood vessels. Some medications cause certain side effects or take too long to work, and we have other options for those patients. If a patient has ≥4 headache days per month or fewer associated with a lot of disability, we need to consider prevention. We have older preventives such as beta blockers and epilepsy medications, which are less expensive and can work but usually have many side effects. Now we have 4 mAbs that bind to CGRP or its receptor, which work well for a month or more with few adverse events. We also have 2 oral gepants for prevention. When you add in several devices, I have so many options for my patients today that I am a lucky neurologist, and my patients are even luckier!

SAN DIEGO – Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil (Provigil), and a combination of both treatments all reduce fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) – but the combination has an edge when it comes to overall perceived benefits, new research shows.

As well, study results suggest that individuals with poorer sleep hygiene may benefit more from CBT, researchers noted.

“Clinicians should consider clinical characteristics and overall treatment goals when selecting fatigue interventions, to offer a more personalized approach for MS fatigue,” said study investigator Tiffany Braley, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Incapacitating symptom

Dr. Braley noted that fatigue affects up to 90% of patients with MS and is the most incapacitating symptom for more than 40% of these patients. In addition, fatigue is a strong predictor of reduced work productivity, unemployment, reduced social participation, and reduced quality of life.

“Given the impact that fatigue has on the health and well-being of people with MS, it is essential to find ways to optimize the current treatments that we have at hand for fatigue in MS in the most patient-centered way possible,” Dr. Braley said.

CBT, which teaches strategies to target maladaptive thoughts and beliefs, is one of the most promising behavioral strategies, the investigators noted. It has been shown to be effective for multiple conditions including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia, and pain.

For MS fatigue, CBT is considered a second-line treatment. Moderate and sustained efficacy have been shown across trials but access remains limited, Dr. Braley reported.

Modafinil, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat sleepiness secondary to obstructive sleep apnea and narcolepsy, is commonly used off-label to treat MS-related fatigue. However, prior trials have yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of the drug for MS fatigue, said Dr. Braley.

Also, different behavioral and pharmacologic therapies have never been combined to determine if there might be a synergistic benefit, she added.

The new 12-week parallel-arm, analyst-blinded COMBO-MS trial included 336 participants (76.2% women; mean age, 48.8 years). Most of the patients (85.1%) were White and most (71.1%) had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive 8 weekly and then two “booster” sessions of telephone-delivered one-on-one CBT, or modafinil with the dose generally ranging from 100 to 200 mg per day, or a combination of the two therapies.

The primary outcome measure was change in fatigue on the self-report Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), using online surveys. The mean baseline MFIS was 52.7.

Study participants also completed questionnaires on disability, sleep disorders, sleep hygiene, and sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness scale).

Covariates included demographics, anxiety based on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, pain score on the Brief Pain Inventory, baseline fatigue score, and physical activity.
 

Clinically, statistically significant

The overall treatment effect on the total MFIS score at 12 weeks was positive for each group. “Each treatment arm was associated with a clinically significant and a statistically significant within-group reduction in MSIF score from 15 to 17 points,” Dr. Braley reported.

“But even though the combination therapy ended up having the highest absolute reduction, it ultimately was not statistically significant,” she added.

Responder analyses showed almost two-thirds of each treatment group experienced at least a 10-point reduction in MSIF, which is considered clinically significant. In addition, more than 50% experienced at least 25% reduction in MSIF. “Again, although the combination therapy seemed to have a higher proportion of responders, this was not statistically significant,” said Dr. Braley.

A secondary outcome was the self-reported Patient Global Impression of Change, which rates overall symptoms and quality of life. More participants in all groups said their symptoms and quality of life at study’s end were somewhat better, moderately better, a definite improvement, or a great deal better.

But here the combination therapy was significantly better than the other interventions. “This suggests there may be more subjective benefits of combination therapy that we’re not capturing” with other measures, Dr. Braley noted.

Sleep hygiene significantly moderated the treatment effect (P = .03). As sleep hygiene worsened, the effect of modafinil monotherapy relative to CBT monotherapy appeared to diminish, and behavior therapy started to have more benefit relative to modafinil therapy, the investigators noted.

“Our results suggest that people with MS who have problems maintaining healthy sleep behaviors could potentially see more benefit from behaviorally based treatments that target sleep habits as part of the fatigue management plan, as opposed to a stimulant medication that could make sleep more difficult to maintain,” Dr. Braley said.

“On the other hand, people with good sleep hygiene may sufficiently respond to modafinil. For those who believe their mood, activity limitations, and quality of life are closely linked to their fatigue, combination therapy may offer more global benefits,” she added.

Sleepiness, as assessed with the Epworth sleepiness scale, had a direct effect on treatment response (P = .0087) that did not vary by intervention. Those who were sleepier had greater reductions on MSIF scores.

Dr. Braley noted that there was an excellent adherence rate, with only 26 participants discontinuing the study. Of these, 20 were from the modafinil group and discontinued because of side effects, and 6 were from the CBT group and discontinued because of time constraints. There were no serious adverse events reported.
 

Important lifestyle factor

Session cochair Deepak Kaushik, PhD, of the department of biomedical sciences, Memorial University, St John’s, Nfld., said the benefit of CBT for MS fatigue “definitely needs to be looked into further.”

Sleep deprivation, along with ensuing fatigue, is among the lifestyle factors that play a vital role in MS, said Dr. Kaushik, who was not involved with the research.

The effect of CBT on fatigue is likely through stress reduction, he said, adding that the immune system is significantly affected by stress. “We know the immune system has a direct linkage to the way you feel [and] your stress response to situations,” so it makes sense that CBT lowers fatigue because it reduces stress, Dr. Kaushik said.

The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Braley and Dr. Kaushik have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil (Provigil), and a combination of both treatments all reduce fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) – but the combination has an edge when it comes to overall perceived benefits, new research shows.

As well, study results suggest that individuals with poorer sleep hygiene may benefit more from CBT, researchers noted.

“Clinicians should consider clinical characteristics and overall treatment goals when selecting fatigue interventions, to offer a more personalized approach for MS fatigue,” said study investigator Tiffany Braley, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Incapacitating symptom

Dr. Braley noted that fatigue affects up to 90% of patients with MS and is the most incapacitating symptom for more than 40% of these patients. In addition, fatigue is a strong predictor of reduced work productivity, unemployment, reduced social participation, and reduced quality of life.

“Given the impact that fatigue has on the health and well-being of people with MS, it is essential to find ways to optimize the current treatments that we have at hand for fatigue in MS in the most patient-centered way possible,” Dr. Braley said.

CBT, which teaches strategies to target maladaptive thoughts and beliefs, is one of the most promising behavioral strategies, the investigators noted. It has been shown to be effective for multiple conditions including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia, and pain.

For MS fatigue, CBT is considered a second-line treatment. Moderate and sustained efficacy have been shown across trials but access remains limited, Dr. Braley reported.

Modafinil, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat sleepiness secondary to obstructive sleep apnea and narcolepsy, is commonly used off-label to treat MS-related fatigue. However, prior trials have yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of the drug for MS fatigue, said Dr. Braley.

Also, different behavioral and pharmacologic therapies have never been combined to determine if there might be a synergistic benefit, she added.

The new 12-week parallel-arm, analyst-blinded COMBO-MS trial included 336 participants (76.2% women; mean age, 48.8 years). Most of the patients (85.1%) were White and most (71.1%) had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive 8 weekly and then two “booster” sessions of telephone-delivered one-on-one CBT, or modafinil with the dose generally ranging from 100 to 200 mg per day, or a combination of the two therapies.

The primary outcome measure was change in fatigue on the self-report Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), using online surveys. The mean baseline MFIS was 52.7.

Study participants also completed questionnaires on disability, sleep disorders, sleep hygiene, and sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness scale).

Covariates included demographics, anxiety based on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, pain score on the Brief Pain Inventory, baseline fatigue score, and physical activity.
 

Clinically, statistically significant

The overall treatment effect on the total MFIS score at 12 weeks was positive for each group. “Each treatment arm was associated with a clinically significant and a statistically significant within-group reduction in MSIF score from 15 to 17 points,” Dr. Braley reported.

“But even though the combination therapy ended up having the highest absolute reduction, it ultimately was not statistically significant,” she added.

Responder analyses showed almost two-thirds of each treatment group experienced at least a 10-point reduction in MSIF, which is considered clinically significant. In addition, more than 50% experienced at least 25% reduction in MSIF. “Again, although the combination therapy seemed to have a higher proportion of responders, this was not statistically significant,” said Dr. Braley.

A secondary outcome was the self-reported Patient Global Impression of Change, which rates overall symptoms and quality of life. More participants in all groups said their symptoms and quality of life at study’s end were somewhat better, moderately better, a definite improvement, or a great deal better.

But here the combination therapy was significantly better than the other interventions. “This suggests there may be more subjective benefits of combination therapy that we’re not capturing” with other measures, Dr. Braley noted.

Sleep hygiene significantly moderated the treatment effect (P = .03). As sleep hygiene worsened, the effect of modafinil monotherapy relative to CBT monotherapy appeared to diminish, and behavior therapy started to have more benefit relative to modafinil therapy, the investigators noted.

“Our results suggest that people with MS who have problems maintaining healthy sleep behaviors could potentially see more benefit from behaviorally based treatments that target sleep habits as part of the fatigue management plan, as opposed to a stimulant medication that could make sleep more difficult to maintain,” Dr. Braley said.

“On the other hand, people with good sleep hygiene may sufficiently respond to modafinil. For those who believe their mood, activity limitations, and quality of life are closely linked to their fatigue, combination therapy may offer more global benefits,” she added.

Sleepiness, as assessed with the Epworth sleepiness scale, had a direct effect on treatment response (P = .0087) that did not vary by intervention. Those who were sleepier had greater reductions on MSIF scores.

Dr. Braley noted that there was an excellent adherence rate, with only 26 participants discontinuing the study. Of these, 20 were from the modafinil group and discontinued because of side effects, and 6 were from the CBT group and discontinued because of time constraints. There were no serious adverse events reported.
 

Important lifestyle factor

Session cochair Deepak Kaushik, PhD, of the department of biomedical sciences, Memorial University, St John’s, Nfld., said the benefit of CBT for MS fatigue “definitely needs to be looked into further.”

Sleep deprivation, along with ensuing fatigue, is among the lifestyle factors that play a vital role in MS, said Dr. Kaushik, who was not involved with the research.

The effect of CBT on fatigue is likely through stress reduction, he said, adding that the immune system is significantly affected by stress. “We know the immune system has a direct linkage to the way you feel [and] your stress response to situations,” so it makes sense that CBT lowers fatigue because it reduces stress, Dr. Kaushik said.

The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Braley and Dr. Kaushik have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil (Provigil), and a combination of both treatments all reduce fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) – but the combination has an edge when it comes to overall perceived benefits, new research shows.

As well, study results suggest that individuals with poorer sleep hygiene may benefit more from CBT, researchers noted.

“Clinicians should consider clinical characteristics and overall treatment goals when selecting fatigue interventions, to offer a more personalized approach for MS fatigue,” said study investigator Tiffany Braley, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Incapacitating symptom

Dr. Braley noted that fatigue affects up to 90% of patients with MS and is the most incapacitating symptom for more than 40% of these patients. In addition, fatigue is a strong predictor of reduced work productivity, unemployment, reduced social participation, and reduced quality of life.

“Given the impact that fatigue has on the health and well-being of people with MS, it is essential to find ways to optimize the current treatments that we have at hand for fatigue in MS in the most patient-centered way possible,” Dr. Braley said.

CBT, which teaches strategies to target maladaptive thoughts and beliefs, is one of the most promising behavioral strategies, the investigators noted. It has been shown to be effective for multiple conditions including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia, and pain.

For MS fatigue, CBT is considered a second-line treatment. Moderate and sustained efficacy have been shown across trials but access remains limited, Dr. Braley reported.

Modafinil, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat sleepiness secondary to obstructive sleep apnea and narcolepsy, is commonly used off-label to treat MS-related fatigue. However, prior trials have yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of the drug for MS fatigue, said Dr. Braley.

Also, different behavioral and pharmacologic therapies have never been combined to determine if there might be a synergistic benefit, she added.

The new 12-week parallel-arm, analyst-blinded COMBO-MS trial included 336 participants (76.2% women; mean age, 48.8 years). Most of the patients (85.1%) were White and most (71.1%) had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive 8 weekly and then two “booster” sessions of telephone-delivered one-on-one CBT, or modafinil with the dose generally ranging from 100 to 200 mg per day, or a combination of the two therapies.

The primary outcome measure was change in fatigue on the self-report Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), using online surveys. The mean baseline MFIS was 52.7.

Study participants also completed questionnaires on disability, sleep disorders, sleep hygiene, and sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness scale).

Covariates included demographics, anxiety based on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, pain score on the Brief Pain Inventory, baseline fatigue score, and physical activity.
 

Clinically, statistically significant

The overall treatment effect on the total MFIS score at 12 weeks was positive for each group. “Each treatment arm was associated with a clinically significant and a statistically significant within-group reduction in MSIF score from 15 to 17 points,” Dr. Braley reported.

“But even though the combination therapy ended up having the highest absolute reduction, it ultimately was not statistically significant,” she added.

Responder analyses showed almost two-thirds of each treatment group experienced at least a 10-point reduction in MSIF, which is considered clinically significant. In addition, more than 50% experienced at least 25% reduction in MSIF. “Again, although the combination therapy seemed to have a higher proportion of responders, this was not statistically significant,” said Dr. Braley.

A secondary outcome was the self-reported Patient Global Impression of Change, which rates overall symptoms and quality of life. More participants in all groups said their symptoms and quality of life at study’s end were somewhat better, moderately better, a definite improvement, or a great deal better.

But here the combination therapy was significantly better than the other interventions. “This suggests there may be more subjective benefits of combination therapy that we’re not capturing” with other measures, Dr. Braley noted.

Sleep hygiene significantly moderated the treatment effect (P = .03). As sleep hygiene worsened, the effect of modafinil monotherapy relative to CBT monotherapy appeared to diminish, and behavior therapy started to have more benefit relative to modafinil therapy, the investigators noted.

“Our results suggest that people with MS who have problems maintaining healthy sleep behaviors could potentially see more benefit from behaviorally based treatments that target sleep habits as part of the fatigue management plan, as opposed to a stimulant medication that could make sleep more difficult to maintain,” Dr. Braley said.

“On the other hand, people with good sleep hygiene may sufficiently respond to modafinil. For those who believe their mood, activity limitations, and quality of life are closely linked to their fatigue, combination therapy may offer more global benefits,” she added.

Sleepiness, as assessed with the Epworth sleepiness scale, had a direct effect on treatment response (P = .0087) that did not vary by intervention. Those who were sleepier had greater reductions on MSIF scores.

Dr. Braley noted that there was an excellent adherence rate, with only 26 participants discontinuing the study. Of these, 20 were from the modafinil group and discontinued because of side effects, and 6 were from the CBT group and discontinued because of time constraints. There were no serious adverse events reported.
 

Important lifestyle factor

Session cochair Deepak Kaushik, PhD, of the department of biomedical sciences, Memorial University, St John’s, Nfld., said the benefit of CBT for MS fatigue “definitely needs to be looked into further.”

Sleep deprivation, along with ensuing fatigue, is among the lifestyle factors that play a vital role in MS, said Dr. Kaushik, who was not involved with the research.

The effect of CBT on fatigue is likely through stress reduction, he said, adding that the immune system is significantly affected by stress. “We know the immune system has a direct linkage to the way you feel [and] your stress response to situations,” so it makes sense that CBT lowers fatigue because it reduces stress, Dr. Kaushik said.

The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Braley and Dr. Kaushik have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent report in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association suggested that, at least for now, we need to lower the bar in Alzheimer’s disease drug trials.

Their point is that there’s no consensus on “clinically meaningful benefit.” Does it mean a complete cure for Alzheimer’s disease, with reversal of deficits? Or stopping disease progression where it is? Or just slowing things down enough that it means something to patients, family members, and caregivers?

The last one is, realistically, where we are now.

The problem with this is that many nonmedical people equate “treatment” with “cure,” which isn’t close to the truth for many diseases. In Alzheimer’s disease, it’s even trickier to figure out. There’s a disparity between imaging (which suggests something that should be quite effective) and clinical results (which aren’t nearly as impressive as the PET scans).

So when I prescribe any of the Alzheimer’s medications, I make it pretty clear to patients, and more importantly the patient’s family, what they can and can’t expect. This isn’t easy, because most will come back a month later, tell me their loved one is no better, and want to try something else. So I have to explain it again. These people aren’t stupid. They’re hopeful, and also facing an impossible question. “Better” is a lot easier to judge than “slowed progression.”

“Better” is a great word for migraines. Or seizures. Or Parkinson’s disease. These are condition where patients and families can tell us whether they’ve seen an improvement.

But with the current treatments for Alzheimer’s disease we’re asking patients and families “do you think you’ve gotten any worse than you would have if you hadn’t taken the drug at all?”

That’s an impossible question to answer, unless you’re following people with objective cognitive data over time and comparing them against a placebo group, which is how these drugs got here in the first place – we know they do that.

But to a family watching their loved ones go downhill, such reassurances aren’t what they want to hear.

Regrettably, it’s where things stand. While I want to strive for absolute success in these things, today it’s simply not possible. Maybe it never will be, though I hope it is.

But, for now, I agree that we need to reframe what we’re going to consider clinically meaningful. Sometimes you have to settle for a flight of stairs instead of an elevator, but still hope that you’ll get to the top. It just takes longer, and it’s better than not going anywhere at all.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A recent report in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association suggested that, at least for now, we need to lower the bar in Alzheimer’s disease drug trials.

Their point is that there’s no consensus on “clinically meaningful benefit.” Does it mean a complete cure for Alzheimer’s disease, with reversal of deficits? Or stopping disease progression where it is? Or just slowing things down enough that it means something to patients, family members, and caregivers?

The last one is, realistically, where we are now.

The problem with this is that many nonmedical people equate “treatment” with “cure,” which isn’t close to the truth for many diseases. In Alzheimer’s disease, it’s even trickier to figure out. There’s a disparity between imaging (which suggests something that should be quite effective) and clinical results (which aren’t nearly as impressive as the PET scans).

So when I prescribe any of the Alzheimer’s medications, I make it pretty clear to patients, and more importantly the patient’s family, what they can and can’t expect. This isn’t easy, because most will come back a month later, tell me their loved one is no better, and want to try something else. So I have to explain it again. These people aren’t stupid. They’re hopeful, and also facing an impossible question. “Better” is a lot easier to judge than “slowed progression.”

“Better” is a great word for migraines. Or seizures. Or Parkinson’s disease. These are condition where patients and families can tell us whether they’ve seen an improvement.

But with the current treatments for Alzheimer’s disease we’re asking patients and families “do you think you’ve gotten any worse than you would have if you hadn’t taken the drug at all?”

That’s an impossible question to answer, unless you’re following people with objective cognitive data over time and comparing them against a placebo group, which is how these drugs got here in the first place – we know they do that.

But to a family watching their loved ones go downhill, such reassurances aren’t what they want to hear.

Regrettably, it’s where things stand. While I want to strive for absolute success in these things, today it’s simply not possible. Maybe it never will be, though I hope it is.

But, for now, I agree that we need to reframe what we’re going to consider clinically meaningful. Sometimes you have to settle for a flight of stairs instead of an elevator, but still hope that you’ll get to the top. It just takes longer, and it’s better than not going anywhere at all.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A recent report in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association suggested that, at least for now, we need to lower the bar in Alzheimer’s disease drug trials.

Their point is that there’s no consensus on “clinically meaningful benefit.” Does it mean a complete cure for Alzheimer’s disease, with reversal of deficits? Or stopping disease progression where it is? Or just slowing things down enough that it means something to patients, family members, and caregivers?

The last one is, realistically, where we are now.

The problem with this is that many nonmedical people equate “treatment” with “cure,” which isn’t close to the truth for many diseases. In Alzheimer’s disease, it’s even trickier to figure out. There’s a disparity between imaging (which suggests something that should be quite effective) and clinical results (which aren’t nearly as impressive as the PET scans).

So when I prescribe any of the Alzheimer’s medications, I make it pretty clear to patients, and more importantly the patient’s family, what they can and can’t expect. This isn’t easy, because most will come back a month later, tell me their loved one is no better, and want to try something else. So I have to explain it again. These people aren’t stupid. They’re hopeful, and also facing an impossible question. “Better” is a lot easier to judge than “slowed progression.”

“Better” is a great word for migraines. Or seizures. Or Parkinson’s disease. These are condition where patients and families can tell us whether they’ve seen an improvement.

But with the current treatments for Alzheimer’s disease we’re asking patients and families “do you think you’ve gotten any worse than you would have if you hadn’t taken the drug at all?”

That’s an impossible question to answer, unless you’re following people with objective cognitive data over time and comparing them against a placebo group, which is how these drugs got here in the first place – we know they do that.

But to a family watching their loved ones go downhill, such reassurances aren’t what they want to hear.

Regrettably, it’s where things stand. While I want to strive for absolute success in these things, today it’s simply not possible. Maybe it never will be, though I hope it is.

But, for now, I agree that we need to reframe what we’re going to consider clinically meaningful. Sometimes you have to settle for a flight of stairs instead of an elevator, but still hope that you’ll get to the top. It just takes longer, and it’s better than not going anywhere at all.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

WASHINGTON – Late lumen loss (LLL) after percutaneous interventions (PCI) can be reduced significantly by a daily glass of beet juice, according to a phase 2 randomized trial.

The protection against LLL, attributed to the nitrate contained in beet juice, was accompanied by a trend for a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), according to Krishnaraj Rathod, MBBS, BMedSci, PhD, who presented results at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The study grew out of relatively recent evidence that ingestion of nitrate-rich foods, such as beets, can trigger noncanonical pathways for nitric oxide generation, sometimes referred to as the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide sequence. Dr. Rathod cited experimental evidence associating this pathway with the traditional benefits of NO generation, such as anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In this study, 300 patients scheduled for PCI to treat stable angina were randomized to the experimental arm of nitrate-rich beetroot juice or the control arm of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice. Each had a 70-mL glass of juice once daily. Dr. Rathod, a senior interventional cardiology registrar, Barts Heart Centre, London, described this as the equivalent of about four beets.

The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent LLL assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months.

MACE, defined as death, MI, need for revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis, was assessed at 3, 9, 12, and 24 months. In addition, markers of NO activation, platelet reactivity, and inflammation were monitored.

Lumen loss reduced less than 50%

On OCA, the median stent LLL at 6 months was 0.244 mm in the nitrate-depleted beet juice group and 0.117 mm (P = .0165) in the group that received natural beet juice. The mean segment LLL similarly favored the natural beet juice (0.269 vs. 0.050 mm; P = .0011).

The same effect was reflected in the measurement of mean change in minimum lumen diameter at 6 months. From baseline, this in-stent measure was reduced at 6 months by 0.244 mm in the control group, but by only 0.117 mm in the group receiving the dietary nitrate (P = .0154 for two-way analysis of variance).

Over 24 months of follow-up, there were 18 MACE events in the control arm versus 9 in the arm randomized to dietary nitrate (P = .0718). There were no in-stent thromboses observed in either group, but death (two vs. five), MI (one vs. six), and target-vessel revascularization (six vs. seven) were all numerically lower in the group receiving dietary nitrate.

“Once-a-day oral dietary nitrate for 6 months was well tolerated and safe,” Dr. Rathod reported at the meeting.

Asked specifically about the taste of the daily glass of beet juice, Dr. Rathod acknowledged that some patients were not enamored, but many had no objections or even liked the taste.

The patients were reasonably representative of a PCI population. The mean age in both groups was 61 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index (approximately 29 kg/m²) or proportion with diabetes (22%), hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia (about 70% in both groups) and other comorbidities.

More PCI was performed in the left anterior descending artery (36.7% vs. 44.0%) in the control group, while less PCI was performed in the right coronary (27.3% vs. 30.7%). Neither difference was significant. The vast majority (~90%) of patients received drug-eluting stents with a mean of 1.4 implanted. Procedural success was 100% in both groups.

Discharge medications, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, were similar in the two groups.

Results characterized as highly positive

Based on the 53% reduction in LLL at 6 months and the trend for a MACE reduction, Dr. Rathod concluded that the results were highly positive.

“These results suggest that dietary nitrate may have a therapeutic role in reducing restenosis following PCI for stable angina,” he said.

In the discussion, several panelists pointed out that nearly one-third of patients were not available for evaluation at 6 months (41 of 150 in the experimental group and 51 of 150 in the control group) with further attrition at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Of these about half were lost to follow-up and the other half withdrew.

The lack of follow-up on such a high proportion of participants is one weakness of this study,” acknowledged Hector M. Garcia-Garcia, MD, PhD, a cardiovascular researcher at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. However, he remains enthusiastic about the premise.

“It was encouraging to see every signal moving in the right direction,” said Dr. Garcia, who consulted with Dr. Rathod’s group on the design of the study. He called these data “promising,” and said they provide support for larger trial for a treatment with potential benefits at low cost.

George Dangas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was among panelists who seemed surprised by such positive findings from a simple but novel concept. However, he remains open to further evaluations.

“As with any surprising result, further confirmation in a large and multicenter trial should be anticipated,” he said in an interview. If, as this study suggests, dietary changes are capable of providing therapeutic NO at the vascular level, he suggested studies to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects or other mechanistic benefits would be helpful.

“Other sources of oral nitrate would also be a worthwhile investigation,” he said.

Dr. Rathod reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Garcia-Garcia reports ties to Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CorFlow, Medtronic, Neovasc, Phillips, and Shockwave. Dr. Dangas reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON – Late lumen loss (LLL) after percutaneous interventions (PCI) can be reduced significantly by a daily glass of beet juice, according to a phase 2 randomized trial.

The protection against LLL, attributed to the nitrate contained in beet juice, was accompanied by a trend for a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), according to Krishnaraj Rathod, MBBS, BMedSci, PhD, who presented results at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The study grew out of relatively recent evidence that ingestion of nitrate-rich foods, such as beets, can trigger noncanonical pathways for nitric oxide generation, sometimes referred to as the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide sequence. Dr. Rathod cited experimental evidence associating this pathway with the traditional benefits of NO generation, such as anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In this study, 300 patients scheduled for PCI to treat stable angina were randomized to the experimental arm of nitrate-rich beetroot juice or the control arm of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice. Each had a 70-mL glass of juice once daily. Dr. Rathod, a senior interventional cardiology registrar, Barts Heart Centre, London, described this as the equivalent of about four beets.

The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent LLL assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months.

MACE, defined as death, MI, need for revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis, was assessed at 3, 9, 12, and 24 months. In addition, markers of NO activation, platelet reactivity, and inflammation were monitored.

Lumen loss reduced less than 50%

On OCA, the median stent LLL at 6 months was 0.244 mm in the nitrate-depleted beet juice group and 0.117 mm (P = .0165) in the group that received natural beet juice. The mean segment LLL similarly favored the natural beet juice (0.269 vs. 0.050 mm; P = .0011).

The same effect was reflected in the measurement of mean change in minimum lumen diameter at 6 months. From baseline, this in-stent measure was reduced at 6 months by 0.244 mm in the control group, but by only 0.117 mm in the group receiving the dietary nitrate (P = .0154 for two-way analysis of variance).

Over 24 months of follow-up, there were 18 MACE events in the control arm versus 9 in the arm randomized to dietary nitrate (P = .0718). There were no in-stent thromboses observed in either group, but death (two vs. five), MI (one vs. six), and target-vessel revascularization (six vs. seven) were all numerically lower in the group receiving dietary nitrate.

“Once-a-day oral dietary nitrate for 6 months was well tolerated and safe,” Dr. Rathod reported at the meeting.

Asked specifically about the taste of the daily glass of beet juice, Dr. Rathod acknowledged that some patients were not enamored, but many had no objections or even liked the taste.

The patients were reasonably representative of a PCI population. The mean age in both groups was 61 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index (approximately 29 kg/m²) or proportion with diabetes (22%), hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia (about 70% in both groups) and other comorbidities.

More PCI was performed in the left anterior descending artery (36.7% vs. 44.0%) in the control group, while less PCI was performed in the right coronary (27.3% vs. 30.7%). Neither difference was significant. The vast majority (~90%) of patients received drug-eluting stents with a mean of 1.4 implanted. Procedural success was 100% in both groups.

Discharge medications, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, were similar in the two groups.

Results characterized as highly positive

Based on the 53% reduction in LLL at 6 months and the trend for a MACE reduction, Dr. Rathod concluded that the results were highly positive.

“These results suggest that dietary nitrate may have a therapeutic role in reducing restenosis following PCI for stable angina,” he said.

In the discussion, several panelists pointed out that nearly one-third of patients were not available for evaluation at 6 months (41 of 150 in the experimental group and 51 of 150 in the control group) with further attrition at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Of these about half were lost to follow-up and the other half withdrew.

The lack of follow-up on such a high proportion of participants is one weakness of this study,” acknowledged Hector M. Garcia-Garcia, MD, PhD, a cardiovascular researcher at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. However, he remains enthusiastic about the premise.

“It was encouraging to see every signal moving in the right direction,” said Dr. Garcia, who consulted with Dr. Rathod’s group on the design of the study. He called these data “promising,” and said they provide support for larger trial for a treatment with potential benefits at low cost.

George Dangas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was among panelists who seemed surprised by such positive findings from a simple but novel concept. However, he remains open to further evaluations.

“As with any surprising result, further confirmation in a large and multicenter trial should be anticipated,” he said in an interview. If, as this study suggests, dietary changes are capable of providing therapeutic NO at the vascular level, he suggested studies to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects or other mechanistic benefits would be helpful.

“Other sources of oral nitrate would also be a worthwhile investigation,” he said.

Dr. Rathod reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Garcia-Garcia reports ties to Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CorFlow, Medtronic, Neovasc, Phillips, and Shockwave. Dr. Dangas reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON – Late lumen loss (LLL) after percutaneous interventions (PCI) can be reduced significantly by a daily glass of beet juice, according to a phase 2 randomized trial.

The protection against LLL, attributed to the nitrate contained in beet juice, was accompanied by a trend for a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), according to Krishnaraj Rathod, MBBS, BMedSci, PhD, who presented results at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The study grew out of relatively recent evidence that ingestion of nitrate-rich foods, such as beets, can trigger noncanonical pathways for nitric oxide generation, sometimes referred to as the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide sequence. Dr. Rathod cited experimental evidence associating this pathway with the traditional benefits of NO generation, such as anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In this study, 300 patients scheduled for PCI to treat stable angina were randomized to the experimental arm of nitrate-rich beetroot juice or the control arm of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice. Each had a 70-mL glass of juice once daily. Dr. Rathod, a senior interventional cardiology registrar, Barts Heart Centre, London, described this as the equivalent of about four beets.

The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent LLL assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months.

MACE, defined as death, MI, need for revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis, was assessed at 3, 9, 12, and 24 months. In addition, markers of NO activation, platelet reactivity, and inflammation were monitored.

Lumen loss reduced less than 50%

On OCA, the median stent LLL at 6 months was 0.244 mm in the nitrate-depleted beet juice group and 0.117 mm (P = .0165) in the group that received natural beet juice. The mean segment LLL similarly favored the natural beet juice (0.269 vs. 0.050 mm; P = .0011).

The same effect was reflected in the measurement of mean change in minimum lumen diameter at 6 months. From baseline, this in-stent measure was reduced at 6 months by 0.244 mm in the control group, but by only 0.117 mm in the group receiving the dietary nitrate (P = .0154 for two-way analysis of variance).

Over 24 months of follow-up, there were 18 MACE events in the control arm versus 9 in the arm randomized to dietary nitrate (P = .0718). There were no in-stent thromboses observed in either group, but death (two vs. five), MI (one vs. six), and target-vessel revascularization (six vs. seven) were all numerically lower in the group receiving dietary nitrate.

“Once-a-day oral dietary nitrate for 6 months was well tolerated and safe,” Dr. Rathod reported at the meeting.

Asked specifically about the taste of the daily glass of beet juice, Dr. Rathod acknowledged that some patients were not enamored, but many had no objections or even liked the taste.

The patients were reasonably representative of a PCI population. The mean age in both groups was 61 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index (approximately 29 kg/m²) or proportion with diabetes (22%), hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia (about 70% in both groups) and other comorbidities.

More PCI was performed in the left anterior descending artery (36.7% vs. 44.0%) in the control group, while less PCI was performed in the right coronary (27.3% vs. 30.7%). Neither difference was significant. The vast majority (~90%) of patients received drug-eluting stents with a mean of 1.4 implanted. Procedural success was 100% in both groups.

Discharge medications, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, were similar in the two groups.

Results characterized as highly positive

Based on the 53% reduction in LLL at 6 months and the trend for a MACE reduction, Dr. Rathod concluded that the results were highly positive.

“These results suggest that dietary nitrate may have a therapeutic role in reducing restenosis following PCI for stable angina,” he said.

In the discussion, several panelists pointed out that nearly one-third of patients were not available for evaluation at 6 months (41 of 150 in the experimental group and 51 of 150 in the control group) with further attrition at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Of these about half were lost to follow-up and the other half withdrew.

The lack of follow-up on such a high proportion of participants is one weakness of this study,” acknowledged Hector M. Garcia-Garcia, MD, PhD, a cardiovascular researcher at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. However, he remains enthusiastic about the premise.

“It was encouraging to see every signal moving in the right direction,” said Dr. Garcia, who consulted with Dr. Rathod’s group on the design of the study. He called these data “promising,” and said they provide support for larger trial for a treatment with potential benefits at low cost.

George Dangas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was among panelists who seemed surprised by such positive findings from a simple but novel concept. However, he remains open to further evaluations.

“As with any surprising result, further confirmation in a large and multicenter trial should be anticipated,” he said in an interview. If, as this study suggests, dietary changes are capable of providing therapeutic NO at the vascular level, he suggested studies to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects or other mechanistic benefits would be helpful.

“Other sources of oral nitrate would also be a worthwhile investigation,” he said.

Dr. Rathod reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Garcia-Garcia reports ties to Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CorFlow, Medtronic, Neovasc, Phillips, and Shockwave. Dr. Dangas reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Medtronic.

The age-adjusted incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is increasing in young women in the United States, and it doesn’t show signs of slowing down, according to a new study published in Gastroenterology.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Between 2001 and 2018, there was a greater than 200% difference in the incidence trend between men and women for ages 15-34, wrote Yazan Abboud, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the pancreaticobiliary department of the Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

“The exact cause of the trend among younger women is unclear and may be driven by sex-based disproportional exposure or response to known or yet-to-be-explored risk factors,” they wrote. “Future efforts should aim to elucidate the causes of such a trend with the goal to formulate possible preventive measures.”

Although previous studies have found increasing pancreatic cancer incidence rates, especially in younger women, the data haven’t been externally validated outside of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, they wrote. In addition, there are limited data about the contributing factors, such as race, histopathological subtype, tumor location, and stage at diagnosis.

Using SEER-excluded data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), Dr. Abboud and colleagues conducted a population-based time-trend analysis of pancreatic cancer incidence rates from 2001 to 2018 in younger adults under age 55, including the role of demographics and tumor characteristics. They analyzed age-adjusted incidence rates (aIR), mortality rates, annual percentage change (APC), and average annual percentage change (AAPC) for ages 55 and older and ages 55 and younger. In addition, the research team evaluated the impact of incidence trends on sex-specific mortality trends in younger adults using the CDC’s National Center of Health Statistics database.

Between 2001 and 2018, 748,132 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. After excluding SEER data, 454,611 patients met the inclusion criteria. About 48.9% were women.

The overall aIR of pancreatic cancer during that time was 12.18 per 100,000 people. Women had a significantly lower aIR, at 10.69 per 100,000, compared with men at 13.95 per 100,000.

In general, pancreatic cancer aIR significantly increased during that time (AAPC = 1.17%). Sex-specific trends increased among both women (AAPC = 1.27%) and men (AAPC = 1.14%), though they showed no significant difference and were parallel.

In ages 55 and older, 401,419 patients (49.7% women) were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The aIR significantly increased during the study period (AAPC = 1.11%), with sex-specific aIR increasing in both women (AAPC = 1.11%) and men (AAPC = 1.17%), without a significant difference.

However, a difference appeared in the 53,051 patients (42.9% women) who were ages 55 and younger. The aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.29%), with faster jumps in women (AAPC = 2.36%), compared with men (AAPC = .62%). There was an absolute significant difference of 1.74%.

The trends continued in breakdowns by age. For 50,599 patients (42.2% women) between ages 35 and 54, the aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.10%). Sex-specific aIR increased among women (AAPC = 2.09%) but remained stable among men (AAPC = 0.54%), with an absolute significant difference of 1.55%.

In the youngest cohort of 2,452 patients (57.3% women) between ages 15 and 34, aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 4.93). Sex-specific aIR also increased in both women (AAPC = 6.45%) and men (AAPC = 2.97%), with an absolute significant difference of 3.48%.

By race, although White women under age 55 experienced increasing aIR at a greater rate than men (AAPC difference = 1.59%), an even more dramatic increase was seen in Black women, as compared to counterpart men (AAPC difference = 2.23%). Sex-specific trends in people of other races were parallel.

Based on tumor characteristics in ages 55 and younger, the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma histopathological subtype had an AAPC difference of 0.89%, and a tumor location in the head-of-pancreas had an AAPC difference of 1.64%.

When evaluating tumors based on stage-at-diagnosis, the AAPC difference was nonsignificant in all subgroups. However, sex-specific trends differed in tumors diagnosed at localized stages, suggesting that aIR in women may be increasing at a greater rate than in men (AAPC difference = 1.64%).

Among 64,239 patients (39.3% women) who died from pancreatic cancer under age 55, the mortality rates were unchanged in women (AAPC = –0.09%) but declined in men (AAPC = –0.64%), with an absolute significant AAPC difference of 0.54%.

UCLA

“Pancreatic cancer has a very poor overall survival, accounting for 7% of cancer-related deaths. The incidence of cancers, in general, is expected to rise as life expectancy increases in the United States,” said Danny Issa, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved with this study.

“Recently, noncomparative studies showed a possible increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer in younger White women and in older White men and women. These reports had limitations,” he said. “The findings of this study are monumental as they confirmed that age-adjusted incidence rates have been increasing at a higher rate in younger women compared to younger men.”

In addition, Dr. Issa said, the significant increases among Black women for adenocarcinoma and for cancers located in the head of the pancreas are notable and should be studied further.

“Over the past few decades, research studies have helped improve cancer treatment by uncovering risk factors and identifying the most affected (or protected) population,” he said. “Therefore, epidemiologic studies are crucial, especially for hard-to-treat cancers such as pancreatic cancer.”

The study was supported in part by a philanthropic grant from The Widjaja Family Fund for Pancreatic Cancer Research. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Issa reported no relevant disclosures.

The age-adjusted incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is increasing in young women in the United States, and it doesn’t show signs of slowing down, according to a new study published in Gastroenterology.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Between 2001 and 2018, there was a greater than 200% difference in the incidence trend between men and women for ages 15-34, wrote Yazan Abboud, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the pancreaticobiliary department of the Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

“The exact cause of the trend among younger women is unclear and may be driven by sex-based disproportional exposure or response to known or yet-to-be-explored risk factors,” they wrote. “Future efforts should aim to elucidate the causes of such a trend with the goal to formulate possible preventive measures.”

Although previous studies have found increasing pancreatic cancer incidence rates, especially in younger women, the data haven’t been externally validated outside of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, they wrote. In addition, there are limited data about the contributing factors, such as race, histopathological subtype, tumor location, and stage at diagnosis.

Using SEER-excluded data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), Dr. Abboud and colleagues conducted a population-based time-trend analysis of pancreatic cancer incidence rates from 2001 to 2018 in younger adults under age 55, including the role of demographics and tumor characteristics. They analyzed age-adjusted incidence rates (aIR), mortality rates, annual percentage change (APC), and average annual percentage change (AAPC) for ages 55 and older and ages 55 and younger. In addition, the research team evaluated the impact of incidence trends on sex-specific mortality trends in younger adults using the CDC’s National Center of Health Statistics database.

Between 2001 and 2018, 748,132 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. After excluding SEER data, 454,611 patients met the inclusion criteria. About 48.9% were women.

The overall aIR of pancreatic cancer during that time was 12.18 per 100,000 people. Women had a significantly lower aIR, at 10.69 per 100,000, compared with men at 13.95 per 100,000.

In general, pancreatic cancer aIR significantly increased during that time (AAPC = 1.17%). Sex-specific trends increased among both women (AAPC = 1.27%) and men (AAPC = 1.14%), though they showed no significant difference and were parallel.

In ages 55 and older, 401,419 patients (49.7% women) were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The aIR significantly increased during the study period (AAPC = 1.11%), with sex-specific aIR increasing in both women (AAPC = 1.11%) and men (AAPC = 1.17%), without a significant difference.

However, a difference appeared in the 53,051 patients (42.9% women) who were ages 55 and younger. The aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.29%), with faster jumps in women (AAPC = 2.36%), compared with men (AAPC = .62%). There was an absolute significant difference of 1.74%.

The trends continued in breakdowns by age. For 50,599 patients (42.2% women) between ages 35 and 54, the aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.10%). Sex-specific aIR increased among women (AAPC = 2.09%) but remained stable among men (AAPC = 0.54%), with an absolute significant difference of 1.55%.

In the youngest cohort of 2,452 patients (57.3% women) between ages 15 and 34, aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 4.93). Sex-specific aIR also increased in both women (AAPC = 6.45%) and men (AAPC = 2.97%), with an absolute significant difference of 3.48%.

By race, although White women under age 55 experienced increasing aIR at a greater rate than men (AAPC difference = 1.59%), an even more dramatic increase was seen in Black women, as compared to counterpart men (AAPC difference = 2.23%). Sex-specific trends in people of other races were parallel.

Based on tumor characteristics in ages 55 and younger, the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma histopathological subtype had an AAPC difference of 0.89%, and a tumor location in the head-of-pancreas had an AAPC difference of 1.64%.

When evaluating tumors based on stage-at-diagnosis, the AAPC difference was nonsignificant in all subgroups. However, sex-specific trends differed in tumors diagnosed at localized stages, suggesting that aIR in women may be increasing at a greater rate than in men (AAPC difference = 1.64%).

Among 64,239 patients (39.3% women) who died from pancreatic cancer under age 55, the mortality rates were unchanged in women (AAPC = –0.09%) but declined in men (AAPC = –0.64%), with an absolute significant AAPC difference of 0.54%.

UCLA

“Pancreatic cancer has a very poor overall survival, accounting for 7% of cancer-related deaths. The incidence of cancers, in general, is expected to rise as life expectancy increases in the United States,” said Danny Issa, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved with this study.

“Recently, noncomparative studies showed a possible increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer in younger White women and in older White men and women. These reports had limitations,” he said. “The findings of this study are monumental as they confirmed that age-adjusted incidence rates have been increasing at a higher rate in younger women compared to younger men.”

In addition, Dr. Issa said, the significant increases among Black women for adenocarcinoma and for cancers located in the head of the pancreas are notable and should be studied further.

“Over the past few decades, research studies have helped improve cancer treatment by uncovering risk factors and identifying the most affected (or protected) population,” he said. “Therefore, epidemiologic studies are crucial, especially for hard-to-treat cancers such as pancreatic cancer.”

The study was supported in part by a philanthropic grant from The Widjaja Family Fund for Pancreatic Cancer Research. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Issa reported no relevant disclosures.

The age-adjusted incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is increasing in young women in the United States, and it doesn’t show signs of slowing down, according to a new study published in Gastroenterology.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Between 2001 and 2018, there was a greater than 200% difference in the incidence trend between men and women for ages 15-34, wrote Yazan Abboud, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the pancreaticobiliary department of the Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

“The exact cause of the trend among younger women is unclear and may be driven by sex-based disproportional exposure or response to known or yet-to-be-explored risk factors,” they wrote. “Future efforts should aim to elucidate the causes of such a trend with the goal to formulate possible preventive measures.”

Although previous studies have found increasing pancreatic cancer incidence rates, especially in younger women, the data haven’t been externally validated outside of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, they wrote. In addition, there are limited data about the contributing factors, such as race, histopathological subtype, tumor location, and stage at diagnosis.

Using SEER-excluded data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), Dr. Abboud and colleagues conducted a population-based time-trend analysis of pancreatic cancer incidence rates from 2001 to 2018 in younger adults under age 55, including the role of demographics and tumor characteristics. They analyzed age-adjusted incidence rates (aIR), mortality rates, annual percentage change (APC), and average annual percentage change (AAPC) for ages 55 and older and ages 55 and younger. In addition, the research team evaluated the impact of incidence trends on sex-specific mortality trends in younger adults using the CDC’s National Center of Health Statistics database.

Between 2001 and 2018, 748,132 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. After excluding SEER data, 454,611 patients met the inclusion criteria. About 48.9% were women.

The overall aIR of pancreatic cancer during that time was 12.18 per 100,000 people. Women had a significantly lower aIR, at 10.69 per 100,000, compared with men at 13.95 per 100,000.

In general, pancreatic cancer aIR significantly increased during that time (AAPC = 1.17%). Sex-specific trends increased among both women (AAPC = 1.27%) and men (AAPC = 1.14%), though they showed no significant difference and were parallel.

In ages 55 and older, 401,419 patients (49.7% women) were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The aIR significantly increased during the study period (AAPC = 1.11%), with sex-specific aIR increasing in both women (AAPC = 1.11%) and men (AAPC = 1.17%), without a significant difference.

However, a difference appeared in the 53,051 patients (42.9% women) who were ages 55 and younger. The aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.29%), with faster jumps in women (AAPC = 2.36%), compared with men (AAPC = .62%). There was an absolute significant difference of 1.74%.

The trends continued in breakdowns by age. For 50,599 patients (42.2% women) between ages 35 and 54, the aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.10%). Sex-specific aIR increased among women (AAPC = 2.09%) but remained stable among men (AAPC = 0.54%), with an absolute significant difference of 1.55%.

In the youngest cohort of 2,452 patients (57.3% women) between ages 15 and 34, aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 4.93). Sex-specific aIR also increased in both women (AAPC = 6.45%) and men (AAPC = 2.97%), with an absolute significant difference of 3.48%.

By race, although White women under age 55 experienced increasing aIR at a greater rate than men (AAPC difference = 1.59%), an even more dramatic increase was seen in Black women, as compared to counterpart men (AAPC difference = 2.23%). Sex-specific trends in people of other races were parallel.

Based on tumor characteristics in ages 55 and younger, the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma histopathological subtype had an AAPC difference of 0.89%, and a tumor location in the head-of-pancreas had an AAPC difference of 1.64%.

When evaluating tumors based on stage-at-diagnosis, the AAPC difference was nonsignificant in all subgroups. However, sex-specific trends differed in tumors diagnosed at localized stages, suggesting that aIR in women may be increasing at a greater rate than in men (AAPC difference = 1.64%).

Among 64,239 patients (39.3% women) who died from pancreatic cancer under age 55, the mortality rates were unchanged in women (AAPC = –0.09%) but declined in men (AAPC = –0.64%), with an absolute significant AAPC difference of 0.54%.

UCLA

“Pancreatic cancer has a very poor overall survival, accounting for 7% of cancer-related deaths. The incidence of cancers, in general, is expected to rise as life expectancy increases in the United States,” said Danny Issa, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved with this study.

“Recently, noncomparative studies showed a possible increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer in younger White women and in older White men and women. These reports had limitations,” he said. “The findings of this study are monumental as they confirmed that age-adjusted incidence rates have been increasing at a higher rate in younger women compared to younger men.”

In addition, Dr. Issa said, the significant increases among Black women for adenocarcinoma and for cancers located in the head of the pancreas are notable and should be studied further.

“Over the past few decades, research studies have helped improve cancer treatment by uncovering risk factors and identifying the most affected (or protected) population,” he said. “Therefore, epidemiologic studies are crucial, especially for hard-to-treat cancers such as pancreatic cancer.”

The study was supported in part by a philanthropic grant from The Widjaja Family Fund for Pancreatic Cancer Research. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Issa reported no relevant disclosures.

In January 2023, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published updated recommendations on the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).¹ The ACP guidelines address initial treatment of patients in the acute phase of mild and moderate-to-severe MDD. Here’s what the ACP recommends, as well as 6 important takeaways.

Recommendations for initial treatment of those with mild or moderate-to-severe MDD center around cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and second-generation antidepressants (SGA). For patients in the acute phase of mild MDD, the recommendation is for monotherapy with CBT. However, if CBT is not an option due to cost and/or availability of services, the use of an SGA is acceptable.

For patients in the acute phase of moderate-to-severe MDD, either CBT, an SGA, or a combination of both is recommended.

If initial treatment does not work … Up to 70% of patients with moderate-to-severe MDD will not respond to the initial therapy chosen. If a patient does not respond to initial treatment with an SGA, consider 1 of the following:

• Switching to CBT
• Adding on CBT while continuing the SGA
• Changing to a different SGA
• Adding a second pharmacologic agent.

6 key takeaways. The full guideline should be read for a more complete discussion of the many clinical considerations of these treatment options. However, the most important points include:

• Employ shared clinical decision-making and consider the individual characteristics of each patient when making treatment decisions.

• Consider generic options when using an SGA; generic options appear to be as effective as more expensive brand-name products.

• Start with a low-dose SGA and increase gradually to an approved maximum dose before determining there has been no response.

• Monitor frequently for medication adverse effects.

• Monitor the patient for thoughts about self-harm for the first 2 months.

• Continue treatment for 4 to 9 months once remission is achieved.

A word about strength of evidence. While these recommendations are based on an extensive review of the best available evidence, most are based on low-certainty evidence—illustrating the amount of clinical research still needed on this topic. The exceptions are monotherapy with either CBT or SGA for initial treatment of moderate-to-severe MDD, both of which are based on moderate-strength evidence and received a strong recommendation. The panel felt there was insufficient evidence to assess complementary and alternative interventions including exercise and omega-3 fatty acids.

In January 2023, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published updated recommendations on the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).¹ The ACP guidelines address initial treatment of patients in the acute phase of mild and moderate-to-severe MDD. Here’s what the ACP recommends, as well as 6 important takeaways.

Recommendations for initial treatment of those with mild or moderate-to-severe MDD center around cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and second-generation antidepressants (SGA). For patients in the acute phase of mild MDD, the recommendation is for monotherapy with CBT. However, if CBT is not an option due to cost and/or availability of services, the use of an SGA is acceptable.

For patients in the acute phase of moderate-to-severe MDD, either CBT, an SGA, or a combination of both is recommended.

If initial treatment does not work … Up to 70% of patients with moderate-to-severe MDD will not respond to the initial therapy chosen. If a patient does not respond to initial treatment with an SGA, consider 1 of the following:

• Switching to CBT
• Adding on CBT while continuing the SGA
• Changing to a different SGA
• Adding a second pharmacologic agent.

6 key takeaways. The full guideline should be read for a more complete discussion of the many clinical considerations of these treatment options. However, the most important points include:

• Employ shared clinical decision-making and consider the individual characteristics of each patient when making treatment decisions.

• Consider generic options when using an SGA; generic options appear to be as effective as more expensive brand-name products.

• Start with a low-dose SGA and increase gradually to an approved maximum dose before determining there has been no response.

• Monitor frequently for medication adverse effects.

• Monitor the patient for thoughts about self-harm for the first 2 months.

• Continue treatment for 4 to 9 months once remission is achieved.

A word about strength of evidence. While these recommendations are based on an extensive review of the best available evidence, most are based on low-certainty evidence—illustrating the amount of clinical research still needed on this topic. The exceptions are monotherapy with either CBT or SGA for initial treatment of moderate-to-severe MDD, both of which are based on moderate-strength evidence and received a strong recommendation. The panel felt there was insufficient evidence to assess complementary and alternative interventions including exercise and omega-3 fatty acids.

In January 2023, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published updated recommendations on the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).¹ The ACP guidelines address initial treatment of patients in the acute phase of mild and moderate-to-severe MDD. Here’s what the ACP recommends, as well as 6 important takeaways.

Recommendations for initial treatment of those with mild or moderate-to-severe MDD center around cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and second-generation antidepressants (SGA). For patients in the acute phase of mild MDD, the recommendation is for monotherapy with CBT. However, if CBT is not an option due to cost and/or availability of services, the use of an SGA is acceptable.

For patients in the acute phase of moderate-to-severe MDD, either CBT, an SGA, or a combination of both is recommended.

If initial treatment does not work … Up to 70% of patients with moderate-to-severe MDD will not respond to the initial therapy chosen. If a patient does not respond to initial treatment with an SGA, consider 1 of the following:

• Switching to CBT
• Adding on CBT while continuing the SGA
• Changing to a different SGA
• Adding a second pharmacologic agent.

6 key takeaways. The full guideline should be read for a more complete discussion of the many clinical considerations of these treatment options. However, the most important points include:

• Employ shared clinical decision-making and consider the individual characteristics of each patient when making treatment decisions.

• Consider generic options when using an SGA; generic options appear to be as effective as more expensive brand-name products.

• Start with a low-dose SGA and increase gradually to an approved maximum dose before determining there has been no response.

• Monitor frequently for medication adverse effects.

• Monitor the patient for thoughts about self-harm for the first 2 months.

• Continue treatment for 4 to 9 months once remission is achieved.

A word about strength of evidence. While these recommendations are based on an extensive review of the best available evidence, most are based on low-certainty evidence—illustrating the amount of clinical research still needed on this topic. The exceptions are monotherapy with either CBT or SGA for initial treatment of moderate-to-severe MDD, both of which are based on moderate-strength evidence and received a strong recommendation. The panel felt there was insufficient evidence to assess complementary and alternative interventions including exercise and omega-3 fatty acids.

Spectacular progress is being made in slowing down aging, with three new molecular indicators of measurable and manageable processes that accelerate or slow down deterioration associated with age, as well as age-related pathologies. These findings are closer than ever to being applied in older adults. Currently, diet is the most accessible form of intervention, but it is appropriate to clarify current myths and realities.

An article published in Cell in 2013 summarized for the first time the molecular indicators of aging in mammals. The article had a great impact and served as a knowledge map about aging. Now the authors have updated and extended this knowledge in the same journal.

A barometer of interest in the topic is that approximately 300,000 articles on aging have been published since 2013, which is as many as were published during the previous century. In addition, almost 80 experiments have been conducted with mammals, including humans, that confirm that interventions in the aging process can prevent, delay, and even avoid age-related diseases such as cancer.

María A. Blasco, MD, scientific director of the National Cancer Research Center, an international leader in telomere research and coauthor of the study, noted on the institution’s website, “The spectacular advances in recent years to increase the longevity of model organisms, including in mammals, indicate that it will be important to develop rational strategies to intervene in human aging.”
 

Eighty experimental interventions

The new article verifies the conclusions of the analysis carried out a decade ago. “Now there is much more investment, and we are closer to applying basic knowledge to new ways of treating diseases,” said Dr. Blasco. The researchers identified nine indicators of aging – molecular signatures that mark the progress of the process and on which it was possible to act to prolong life.

They also point to four primary causes of aging: genomic instability, shortening of telomeres, epigenetic alterations, and imbalance between protein synthesis and degradation. These are strongly interconnected processes. Aging results from their joint action, which is why there are multiple ways to act on the physiologic process of aging. The new study includes a table with almost 80 recent experimental interventions with mammals (mostly mice) that suggest that it is possible to prolong life or treat age-associated diseases. Some of those studies concern humans; others investigate how to delay aging through diet. “Acting on the diet is one of the most accessible ways to intervene in human aging,” according to the researchers.
 

Nutrient sensors

Dietary interventions are related to a key indicator of aging: the dysregulation of the nutrient sensing mechanism. This mechanism is the sophisticated network of molecular signals that alert all mammals that food is available.

“Nutrient sensors are therapeutic targets for potential anti-longevity drugs, but health benefits and lifespan extension could also be achieved through dietary interventions. However, the results obtained in this line in our species are still unclear: Clinical trials based on dietary restriction in humans become complicated due to poor compliance, although they suggest positive effects on immunity and inflammation,” wrote the researchers.
 

Diet and disease

Javier Gómez Pavón, MD, head of geriatrics at Red Cross Hospital in Madrid and member of the leadership team of the Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology, told this news organization, “Currently, the evidence we have indicates that certain types of diet in population cohort studies are associated with a lower incidence and prevalence of certain diseases.”

Dr. Gómez mentioned contrasting examples. “The Mediterranean diet has been shown in different studies to be associated with a lower cardiovascular risk (stroke, ischemic heart disease, dyslipidemia) and a lower risk of cognitive impairment, especially due to its vascular component.”

Eating nuts (e.g., almonds, walnuts) is associated with a less dyslipidemia. A diet rich in fiber is also associated with less colonic digestive pathology, such as constipation and especially colon cancer. In addition, a diet low in fatty meats and rich in fruits and vegetables is associated with less prostate, breast, and colon disease. A diet with adequate protein intake is related to better muscle mass at all ages, and a diet rich in calcium products, such as nuts and dairy products, is linked to better bone mass and less osteoporosis and its consequences.

“At the moment, there is no study that links any type of diet with greater longevity, although in view of these data, it seems logical that a Mediterranean diet rich in fruits, vegetables, vegetables with proteins of animal origin, preferably fish or white meat, avoiding excess red meat and its calcium component in the form of nuts and dairy products would be associated with better disease-free aging,” said Dr. Gómez.
 

Aging indicators

The article expands the aging indicators from 9 to 12 (genomic instability, telomere wear, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, inactivated macroautophagy, dysregulation of nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, depletion of hematopoietic progenitor cells, alteration of intercellular communication, chronic inflammation, and imbalances in the microbiome), which are measurable processes that change with the aging of the organism and which, when manipulated experimentally, induce an acceleration or, on the contrary, an interruption, even a regression, of aging.

“Each of these indicators should be considered an entry point for future exploration of the aging process, as well as for the development of new antiaging drugs,” the researchers concluded.

A decade ago, it was recognized that telomere shortening was at the origin of age-related diseases, said Dr. Blasco. “It is now emphasized that the generation of mouse models with short telomeres has shown that telomeric wasting is at the origin of prevalent age-associated diseases, such as pulmonary and renal fibrosis.”

The recent study reviews new interventions to delay aging and age-related diseases that act on telomeres. “For example, the activation of telomerase through a gene therapy strategy has shown therapeutic effects in mouse models of pulmonary fibrosis and aplastic anemia,” Dr. Blasco added.
 

Food fact and fiction

Since diet is currently the most easily accessible element to slow down aging, Dr. Gómez refutes the most widespread myths that are circulating about food and longevity. First, regarding dairy products, it is said that yogurt is not useful for the elderly, since the elderly do not have adequate enzymes to digest yogurt and that it is only for children or young people who are growing. “It is not true. Dairy products are not important for their proteins but for their calcium and vitamin D content. [These are] fundamental elements at all ages, but especially in aging, where there is bone loss secondary to aging itself and an increased risk of osteoporosis and associated fractures. Especially in the elderly, the tragic hip fracture is associated with high morbidity and mortality.”

Another myth is that it is not good to eat fruit with meals. “Due to its rich content in antioxidants and vitamins, it is a fundamental food of the Mediterranean diet. Antioxidants of any type (nuts, vegetables, fruits, etc.) are undoubtedly the most important components against pathological aging (stroke, myocardial infarction, dementia, etc.). It may be true that they can be more easily digested if they are eaten outside of meals, but the important thing is that they be eaten whenever.”

Sugars and meat

“Regarding the ‘fact’ that the sugars in legumes and bread are harmful, it is not true. In addition to sugar, legumes contain fiber and other very important antioxidants, just like bread. The difference is the amount, as in all food. On the contrary, refined sugars, such as pastries, sugary drinks, etc., should be avoided, since they are directly related to cardiovascular disease and obesity,” added Dr. Gómez.

“As for the popular saying, ‘Do not even try meat,’ it is not sound, since red meat and fish, including oily fish, are rich in protein and vitamin B as well as iron and, therefore, are necessary.

“As always, it is the amount that should be limited, especially red meat, not so much oily fish. I would recommend reducing red meat and replacing it with white meat, since the former are rich in saturated fats that produce more cholesterol,” added Dr. Gómez.

Another phrase that circulates around is that wine is food. “Careful. Wine in small quantities, a glass at lunch and dinner, is beneficial due to its antioxidant power, but at more than these amounts, the negative power of alcohol predominates over its benefits,” concluded Dr. Gómez.

Dr. Gómez has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Spectacular progress is being made in slowing down aging, with three new molecular indicators of measurable and manageable processes that accelerate or slow down deterioration associated with age, as well as age-related pathologies. These findings are closer than ever to being applied in older adults. Currently, diet is the most accessible form of intervention, but it is appropriate to clarify current myths and realities.

An article published in Cell in 2013 summarized for the first time the molecular indicators of aging in mammals. The article had a great impact and served as a knowledge map about aging. Now the authors have updated and extended this knowledge in the same journal.

A barometer of interest in the topic is that approximately 300,000 articles on aging have been published since 2013, which is as many as were published during the previous century. In addition, almost 80 experiments have been conducted with mammals, including humans, that confirm that interventions in the aging process can prevent, delay, and even avoid age-related diseases such as cancer.

María A. Blasco, MD, scientific director of the National Cancer Research Center, an international leader in telomere research and coauthor of the study, noted on the institution’s website, “The spectacular advances in recent years to increase the longevity of model organisms, including in mammals, indicate that it will be important to develop rational strategies to intervene in human aging.”
 

Eighty experimental interventions

The new article verifies the conclusions of the analysis carried out a decade ago. “Now there is much more investment, and we are closer to applying basic knowledge to new ways of treating diseases,” said Dr. Blasco. The researchers identified nine indicators of aging – molecular signatures that mark the progress of the process and on which it was possible to act to prolong life.

They also point to four primary causes of aging: genomic instability, shortening of telomeres, epigenetic alterations, and imbalance between protein synthesis and degradation. These are strongly interconnected processes. Aging results from their joint action, which is why there are multiple ways to act on the physiologic process of aging. The new study includes a table with almost 80 recent experimental interventions with mammals (mostly mice) that suggest that it is possible to prolong life or treat age-associated diseases. Some of those studies concern humans; others investigate how to delay aging through diet. “Acting on the diet is one of the most accessible ways to intervene in human aging,” according to the researchers.
 

Nutrient sensors

Dietary interventions are related to a key indicator of aging: the dysregulation of the nutrient sensing mechanism. This mechanism is the sophisticated network of molecular signals that alert all mammals that food is available.

“Nutrient sensors are therapeutic targets for potential anti-longevity drugs, but health benefits and lifespan extension could also be achieved through dietary interventions. However, the results obtained in this line in our species are still unclear: Clinical trials based on dietary restriction in humans become complicated due to poor compliance, although they suggest positive effects on immunity and inflammation,” wrote the researchers.
 

Diet and disease

Javier Gómez Pavón, MD, head of geriatrics at Red Cross Hospital in Madrid and member of the leadership team of the Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology, told this news organization, “Currently, the evidence we have indicates that certain types of diet in population cohort studies are associated with a lower incidence and prevalence of certain diseases.”

Dr. Gómez mentioned contrasting examples. “The Mediterranean diet has been shown in different studies to be associated with a lower cardiovascular risk (stroke, ischemic heart disease, dyslipidemia) and a lower risk of cognitive impairment, especially due to its vascular component.”

Eating nuts (e.g., almonds, walnuts) is associated with a less dyslipidemia. A diet rich in fiber is also associated with less colonic digestive pathology, such as constipation and especially colon cancer. In addition, a diet low in fatty meats and rich in fruits and vegetables is associated with less prostate, breast, and colon disease. A diet with adequate protein intake is related to better muscle mass at all ages, and a diet rich in calcium products, such as nuts and dairy products, is linked to better bone mass and less osteoporosis and its consequences.

“At the moment, there is no study that links any type of diet with greater longevity, although in view of these data, it seems logical that a Mediterranean diet rich in fruits, vegetables, vegetables with proteins of animal origin, preferably fish or white meat, avoiding excess red meat and its calcium component in the form of nuts and dairy products would be associated with better disease-free aging,” said Dr. Gómez.
 

Aging indicators

The article expands the aging indicators from 9 to 12 (genomic instability, telomere wear, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, inactivated macroautophagy, dysregulation of nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, depletion of hematopoietic progenitor cells, alteration of intercellular communication, chronic inflammation, and imbalances in the microbiome), which are measurable processes that change with the aging of the organism and which, when manipulated experimentally, induce an acceleration or, on the contrary, an interruption, even a regression, of aging.

“Each of these indicators should be considered an entry point for future exploration of the aging process, as well as for the development of new antiaging drugs,” the researchers concluded.

A decade ago, it was recognized that telomere shortening was at the origin of age-related diseases, said Dr. Blasco. “It is now emphasized that the generation of mouse models with short telomeres has shown that telomeric wasting is at the origin of prevalent age-associated diseases, such as pulmonary and renal fibrosis.”

The recent study reviews new interventions to delay aging and age-related diseases that act on telomeres. “For example, the activation of telomerase through a gene therapy strategy has shown therapeutic effects in mouse models of pulmonary fibrosis and aplastic anemia,” Dr. Blasco added.
 

Food fact and fiction

Since diet is currently the most easily accessible element to slow down aging, Dr. Gómez refutes the most widespread myths that are circulating about food and longevity. First, regarding dairy products, it is said that yogurt is not useful for the elderly, since the elderly do not have adequate enzymes to digest yogurt and that it is only for children or young people who are growing. “It is not true. Dairy products are not important for their proteins but for their calcium and vitamin D content. [These are] fundamental elements at all ages, but especially in aging, where there is bone loss secondary to aging itself and an increased risk of osteoporosis and associated fractures. Especially in the elderly, the tragic hip fracture is associated with high morbidity and mortality.”

Another myth is that it is not good to eat fruit with meals. “Due to its rich content in antioxidants and vitamins, it is a fundamental food of the Mediterranean diet. Antioxidants of any type (nuts, vegetables, fruits, etc.) are undoubtedly the most important components against pathological aging (stroke, myocardial infarction, dementia, etc.). It may be true that they can be more easily digested if they are eaten outside of meals, but the important thing is that they be eaten whenever.”

Sugars and meat

“Regarding the ‘fact’ that the sugars in legumes and bread are harmful, it is not true. In addition to sugar, legumes contain fiber and other very important antioxidants, just like bread. The difference is the amount, as in all food. On the contrary, refined sugars, such as pastries, sugary drinks, etc., should be avoided, since they are directly related to cardiovascular disease and obesity,” added Dr. Gómez.

“As for the popular saying, ‘Do not even try meat,’ it is not sound, since red meat and fish, including oily fish, are rich in protein and vitamin B as well as iron and, therefore, are necessary.

“As always, it is the amount that should be limited, especially red meat, not so much oily fish. I would recommend reducing red meat and replacing it with white meat, since the former are rich in saturated fats that produce more cholesterol,” added Dr. Gómez.

Another phrase that circulates around is that wine is food. “Careful. Wine in small quantities, a glass at lunch and dinner, is beneficial due to its antioxidant power, but at more than these amounts, the negative power of alcohol predominates over its benefits,” concluded Dr. Gómez.

Dr. Gómez has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Spectacular progress is being made in slowing down aging, with three new molecular indicators of measurable and manageable processes that accelerate or slow down deterioration associated with age, as well as age-related pathologies. These findings are closer than ever to being applied in older adults. Currently, diet is the most accessible form of intervention, but it is appropriate to clarify current myths and realities.

An article published in Cell in 2013 summarized for the first time the molecular indicators of aging in mammals. The article had a great impact and served as a knowledge map about aging. Now the authors have updated and extended this knowledge in the same journal.

A barometer of interest in the topic is that approximately 300,000 articles on aging have been published since 2013, which is as many as were published during the previous century. In addition, almost 80 experiments have been conducted with mammals, including humans, that confirm that interventions in the aging process can prevent, delay, and even avoid age-related diseases such as cancer.

María A. Blasco, MD, scientific director of the National Cancer Research Center, an international leader in telomere research and coauthor of the study, noted on the institution’s website, “The spectacular advances in recent years to increase the longevity of model organisms, including in mammals, indicate that it will be important to develop rational strategies to intervene in human aging.”
 

Eighty experimental interventions

The new article verifies the conclusions of the analysis carried out a decade ago. “Now there is much more investment, and we are closer to applying basic knowledge to new ways of treating diseases,” said Dr. Blasco. The researchers identified nine indicators of aging – molecular signatures that mark the progress of the process and on which it was possible to act to prolong life.

They also point to four primary causes of aging: genomic instability, shortening of telomeres, epigenetic alterations, and imbalance between protein synthesis and degradation. These are strongly interconnected processes. Aging results from their joint action, which is why there are multiple ways to act on the physiologic process of aging. The new study includes a table with almost 80 recent experimental interventions with mammals (mostly mice) that suggest that it is possible to prolong life or treat age-associated diseases. Some of those studies concern humans; others investigate how to delay aging through diet. “Acting on the diet is one of the most accessible ways to intervene in human aging,” according to the researchers.
 

Nutrient sensors

Dietary interventions are related to a key indicator of aging: the dysregulation of the nutrient sensing mechanism. This mechanism is the sophisticated network of molecular signals that alert all mammals that food is available.

“Nutrient sensors are therapeutic targets for potential anti-longevity drugs, but health benefits and lifespan extension could also be achieved through dietary interventions. However, the results obtained in this line in our species are still unclear: Clinical trials based on dietary restriction in humans become complicated due to poor compliance, although they suggest positive effects on immunity and inflammation,” wrote the researchers.
 

Diet and disease

Javier Gómez Pavón, MD, head of geriatrics at Red Cross Hospital in Madrid and member of the leadership team of the Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology, told this news organization, “Currently, the evidence we have indicates that certain types of diet in population cohort studies are associated with a lower incidence and prevalence of certain diseases.”

Dr. Gómez mentioned contrasting examples. “The Mediterranean diet has been shown in different studies to be associated with a lower cardiovascular risk (stroke, ischemic heart disease, dyslipidemia) and a lower risk of cognitive impairment, especially due to its vascular component.”

Eating nuts (e.g., almonds, walnuts) is associated with a less dyslipidemia. A diet rich in fiber is also associated with less colonic digestive pathology, such as constipation and especially colon cancer. In addition, a diet low in fatty meats and rich in fruits and vegetables is associated with less prostate, breast, and colon disease. A diet with adequate protein intake is related to better muscle mass at all ages, and a diet rich in calcium products, such as nuts and dairy products, is linked to better bone mass and less osteoporosis and its consequences.

“At the moment, there is no study that links any type of diet with greater longevity, although in view of these data, it seems logical that a Mediterranean diet rich in fruits, vegetables, vegetables with proteins of animal origin, preferably fish or white meat, avoiding excess red meat and its calcium component in the form of nuts and dairy products would be associated with better disease-free aging,” said Dr. Gómez.
 

Aging indicators

The article expands the aging indicators from 9 to 12 (genomic instability, telomere wear, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, inactivated macroautophagy, dysregulation of nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, depletion of hematopoietic progenitor cells, alteration of intercellular communication, chronic inflammation, and imbalances in the microbiome), which are measurable processes that change with the aging of the organism and which, when manipulated experimentally, induce an acceleration or, on the contrary, an interruption, even a regression, of aging.

“Each of these indicators should be considered an entry point for future exploration of the aging process, as well as for the development of new antiaging drugs,” the researchers concluded.

A decade ago, it was recognized that telomere shortening was at the origin of age-related diseases, said Dr. Blasco. “It is now emphasized that the generation of mouse models with short telomeres has shown that telomeric wasting is at the origin of prevalent age-associated diseases, such as pulmonary and renal fibrosis.”

The recent study reviews new interventions to delay aging and age-related diseases that act on telomeres. “For example, the activation of telomerase through a gene therapy strategy has shown therapeutic effects in mouse models of pulmonary fibrosis and aplastic anemia,” Dr. Blasco added.
 

Food fact and fiction

Since diet is currently the most easily accessible element to slow down aging, Dr. Gómez refutes the most widespread myths that are circulating about food and longevity. First, regarding dairy products, it is said that yogurt is not useful for the elderly, since the elderly do not have adequate enzymes to digest yogurt and that it is only for children or young people who are growing. “It is not true. Dairy products are not important for their proteins but for their calcium and vitamin D content. [These are] fundamental elements at all ages, but especially in aging, where there is bone loss secondary to aging itself and an increased risk of osteoporosis and associated fractures. Especially in the elderly, the tragic hip fracture is associated with high morbidity and mortality.”

Another myth is that it is not good to eat fruit with meals. “Due to its rich content in antioxidants and vitamins, it is a fundamental food of the Mediterranean diet. Antioxidants of any type (nuts, vegetables, fruits, etc.) are undoubtedly the most important components against pathological aging (stroke, myocardial infarction, dementia, etc.). It may be true that they can be more easily digested if they are eaten outside of meals, but the important thing is that they be eaten whenever.”

Sugars and meat

“Regarding the ‘fact’ that the sugars in legumes and bread are harmful, it is not true. In addition to sugar, legumes contain fiber and other very important antioxidants, just like bread. The difference is the amount, as in all food. On the contrary, refined sugars, such as pastries, sugary drinks, etc., should be avoided, since they are directly related to cardiovascular disease and obesity,” added Dr. Gómez.

“As for the popular saying, ‘Do not even try meat,’ it is not sound, since red meat and fish, including oily fish, are rich in protein and vitamin B as well as iron and, therefore, are necessary.

“As always, it is the amount that should be limited, especially red meat, not so much oily fish. I would recommend reducing red meat and replacing it with white meat, since the former are rich in saturated fats that produce more cholesterol,” added Dr. Gómez.

Another phrase that circulates around is that wine is food. “Careful. Wine in small quantities, a glass at lunch and dinner, is beneficial due to its antioxidant power, but at more than these amounts, the negative power of alcohol predominates over its benefits,” concluded Dr. Gómez.

Dr. Gómez has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia risk is significantly higher in women than in men worldwide, and social and economic disadvantages among women could be to blame, a study suggests.

Prior research has found a higher lifetime dementia risk in women, and one explanation cited has been that women tend to live longer than men.

However, this new analysis of data from nearly 30,000 people in 18 countries found almost no evidence of sex differences in most known risk factors for dementia, including age.

The risk of dementia among women was significantly higher in poorer countries, pointing to economic disadvantages as a possible explanation.

“In general, we found that the greater dementia risk found in women compared to men was more pronounced in poorer countries, which points to the need for greater efforts to narrow the gaps in health disparities between women and men in these countries,” lead investigator Jessica Gong, MSc, a doctoral student at the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, told this news organization. “It is likely that socioeconomic factors are potentially more important than biological factors when assessing dementia risk.”

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

Global data

Most previous studies that examined sex differences in dementia risk were conducted in high-income countries, Ms. Gong noted, leaving a gap in the literature on risk in low- and middle-income countries.

To address this issue, researchers conducted an individual participant meta-analysis of 21 studies from the Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium. Data analysis included information on 29,850 people from 18 countries on six continents. None of the participants had dementia at baseline, and the average age was 71.6 years.

Over a median of 4.6 years, incident dementia was reported in 2,089 people, 66% of whom were women.

Overall, women had higher dementia risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) than men, but the rates were highest in low- to middle-income economies (HR, 1.73; P = .03).

Dementia risk in women was higher than in men in 14 countries. Risk was highest in Nigeria, where dementia risk was more than double in women (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.46-3.04), and lowest in Brazil, where risk was 46% lower in women than in men (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In the United States, dementia risk was 7% higher in women than men (aHR, 1.07; 0.73-1.57).
 

Similar risk factors

In both women and men, older age, diabetes, depression, hearing impairment, and apo E–epsilon 4 carriage were associated with a greater risk of dementia, and more years of education, higher hip circumference, current alcohol use (vs. never), and high physical activity (vs. none to minimal) were associated with a lower risk of dementia.

Among all these risk factors, sex differences were only significant for longer education and former alcohol use, with both demonstrating a stronger association in men than women.

Global dementia rates are expected to triple over the next 25 years unless steps are taken to reduce risk factors. A 2020 report found that dementia risk could be reduced by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including obesity, air pollution, diabetes, social isolation, and hypertension. All of these risk factors are more common in low- to middle-income countries, Ms. Gong noted.

“These findings justify ongoing efforts to support programs to improve sex and gender equity in brain health, particularly in underrepresented and underserved populations, in turn to narrow the gaps within and between country,” Ms. Gong said.
 

Understanding the puzzle

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, said the findings add to the body of work about sex differences in dementia risk.

“This is an interesting study looking at risk factors for dementia and suggests that, while some risk factors are more pronounced in men than in women, women may be more at risk of progressing to dementia,” Dr. Snyder said. “The findings outline the importance of understanding how the underlying biology, particularly biology that differs in males and females, may be contributing to risk.”

Data on the country and geographical variations highlighted in the study also point to a potential risk influencer, she said.

“Studying geography-specific risk factors is important because it helps us understand the ‘why’ behind geographic differences in dementia risk,” Dr. Snyder said. “This type of collaboration among countries and researchers is essential for us to understand these puzzle pieces.”

Funding for the study was provided by the U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant, National Institute on Aging, among others. See the original article for full funding sources. Ms. Gong reported no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Snyder is employed by the Alzheimer’s Association.

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

Dementia risk is significantly higher in women than in men worldwide, and social and economic disadvantages among women could be to blame, a study suggests.

Prior research has found a higher lifetime dementia risk in women, and one explanation cited has been that women tend to live longer than men.

However, this new analysis of data from nearly 30,000 people in 18 countries found almost no evidence of sex differences in most known risk factors for dementia, including age.

The risk of dementia among women was significantly higher in poorer countries, pointing to economic disadvantages as a possible explanation.

“In general, we found that the greater dementia risk found in women compared to men was more pronounced in poorer countries, which points to the need for greater efforts to narrow the gaps in health disparities between women and men in these countries,” lead investigator Jessica Gong, MSc, a doctoral student at the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, told this news organization. “It is likely that socioeconomic factors are potentially more important than biological factors when assessing dementia risk.”

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

Global data

Most previous studies that examined sex differences in dementia risk were conducted in high-income countries, Ms. Gong noted, leaving a gap in the literature on risk in low- and middle-income countries.

To address this issue, researchers conducted an individual participant meta-analysis of 21 studies from the Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium. Data analysis included information on 29,850 people from 18 countries on six continents. None of the participants had dementia at baseline, and the average age was 71.6 years.

Over a median of 4.6 years, incident dementia was reported in 2,089 people, 66% of whom were women.

Overall, women had higher dementia risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) than men, but the rates were highest in low- to middle-income economies (HR, 1.73; P = .03).

Dementia risk in women was higher than in men in 14 countries. Risk was highest in Nigeria, where dementia risk was more than double in women (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.46-3.04), and lowest in Brazil, where risk was 46% lower in women than in men (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In the United States, dementia risk was 7% higher in women than men (aHR, 1.07; 0.73-1.57).
 

Similar risk factors

In both women and men, older age, diabetes, depression, hearing impairment, and apo E–epsilon 4 carriage were associated with a greater risk of dementia, and more years of education, higher hip circumference, current alcohol use (vs. never), and high physical activity (vs. none to minimal) were associated with a lower risk of dementia.

Among all these risk factors, sex differences were only significant for longer education and former alcohol use, with both demonstrating a stronger association in men than women.

Global dementia rates are expected to triple over the next 25 years unless steps are taken to reduce risk factors. A 2020 report found that dementia risk could be reduced by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including obesity, air pollution, diabetes, social isolation, and hypertension. All of these risk factors are more common in low- to middle-income countries, Ms. Gong noted.

“These findings justify ongoing efforts to support programs to improve sex and gender equity in brain health, particularly in underrepresented and underserved populations, in turn to narrow the gaps within and between country,” Ms. Gong said.
 

Understanding the puzzle

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, said the findings add to the body of work about sex differences in dementia risk.

“This is an interesting study looking at risk factors for dementia and suggests that, while some risk factors are more pronounced in men than in women, women may be more at risk of progressing to dementia,” Dr. Snyder said. “The findings outline the importance of understanding how the underlying biology, particularly biology that differs in males and females, may be contributing to risk.”

Data on the country and geographical variations highlighted in the study also point to a potential risk influencer, she said.

“Studying geography-specific risk factors is important because it helps us understand the ‘why’ behind geographic differences in dementia risk,” Dr. Snyder said. “This type of collaboration among countries and researchers is essential for us to understand these puzzle pieces.”

Funding for the study was provided by the U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant, National Institute on Aging, among others. See the original article for full funding sources. Ms. Gong reported no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Snyder is employed by the Alzheimer’s Association.

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

Dementia risk is significantly higher in women than in men worldwide, and social and economic disadvantages among women could be to blame, a study suggests.

Prior research has found a higher lifetime dementia risk in women, and one explanation cited has been that women tend to live longer than men.

However, this new analysis of data from nearly 30,000 people in 18 countries found almost no evidence of sex differences in most known risk factors for dementia, including age.

The risk of dementia among women was significantly higher in poorer countries, pointing to economic disadvantages as a possible explanation.

“In general, we found that the greater dementia risk found in women compared to men was more pronounced in poorer countries, which points to the need for greater efforts to narrow the gaps in health disparities between women and men in these countries,” lead investigator Jessica Gong, MSc, a doctoral student at the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, told this news organization. “It is likely that socioeconomic factors are potentially more important than biological factors when assessing dementia risk.”

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

Global data

Most previous studies that examined sex differences in dementia risk were conducted in high-income countries, Ms. Gong noted, leaving a gap in the literature on risk in low- and middle-income countries.

To address this issue, researchers conducted an individual participant meta-analysis of 21 studies from the Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium. Data analysis included information on 29,850 people from 18 countries on six continents. None of the participants had dementia at baseline, and the average age was 71.6 years.

Over a median of 4.6 years, incident dementia was reported in 2,089 people, 66% of whom were women.

Overall, women had higher dementia risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23) than men, but the rates were highest in low- to middle-income economies (HR, 1.73; P = .03).

Dementia risk in women was higher than in men in 14 countries. Risk was highest in Nigeria, where dementia risk was more than double in women (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.46-3.04), and lowest in Brazil, where risk was 46% lower in women than in men (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In the United States, dementia risk was 7% higher in women than men (aHR, 1.07; 0.73-1.57).
 

Similar risk factors

In both women and men, older age, diabetes, depression, hearing impairment, and apo E–epsilon 4 carriage were associated with a greater risk of dementia, and more years of education, higher hip circumference, current alcohol use (vs. never), and high physical activity (vs. none to minimal) were associated with a lower risk of dementia.

Among all these risk factors, sex differences were only significant for longer education and former alcohol use, with both demonstrating a stronger association in men than women.

Global dementia rates are expected to triple over the next 25 years unless steps are taken to reduce risk factors. A 2020 report found that dementia risk could be reduced by addressing 12 modifiable risk factors, including obesity, air pollution, diabetes, social isolation, and hypertension. All of these risk factors are more common in low- to middle-income countries, Ms. Gong noted.

“These findings justify ongoing efforts to support programs to improve sex and gender equity in brain health, particularly in underrepresented and underserved populations, in turn to narrow the gaps within and between country,” Ms. Gong said.
 

Understanding the puzzle

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, said the findings add to the body of work about sex differences in dementia risk.

“This is an interesting study looking at risk factors for dementia and suggests that, while some risk factors are more pronounced in men than in women, women may be more at risk of progressing to dementia,” Dr. Snyder said. “The findings outline the importance of understanding how the underlying biology, particularly biology that differs in males and females, may be contributing to risk.”

Data on the country and geographical variations highlighted in the study also point to a potential risk influencer, she said.

“Studying geography-specific risk factors is important because it helps us understand the ‘why’ behind geographic differences in dementia risk,” Dr. Snyder said. “This type of collaboration among countries and researchers is essential for us to understand these puzzle pieces.”

Funding for the study was provided by the U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant, National Institute on Aging, among others. See the original article for full funding sources. Ms. Gong reported no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Snyder is employed by the Alzheimer’s Association.

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

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

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

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

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

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

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