User login
WHO advises against nonsugar sweeteners for weight control
These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.
The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.
The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.
To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.
Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence).
Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.
Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
Reducing sugar consumption
“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release.
“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
Applying the guideline
The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO.
The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).
Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO.
“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.
These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.
The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.
The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.
To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.
Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence).
Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.
Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
Reducing sugar consumption
“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release.
“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
Applying the guideline
The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO.
The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).
Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO.
“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.
These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.
The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.
The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.
To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.
Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence).
Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.
Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
Reducing sugar consumption
“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release.
“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
Applying the guideline
The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO.
The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).
Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO.
“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.
Is the WHO’s ‘active aging’ the only healthy alternative?
MAR DEL PLATA, ARGENTINA – In the “active aging” vision promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO), older adults stay physically active, independent, and involved. This concept, though well-intentioned, is not very realistic and could easily be discouraging to individuals suffering from the psychological or physical limitations of old age. It also does not account for diversity among individuals and across cultures. These conclusions were presented by the Geriatric Psychiatry Chapter of the Argentine Psychiatric Association at its XXXVI Argentine Congress of Psychiatry.
“The WHO’s proposal of active aging is a prescriptive, standardized ideology that seems to suggest that being active is the only healthy way to age. However, that’s only part of the picture, and a biased part at that. It doesn’t account for the broad spectrum of aging processes that come in many shades,” said Mariana Pedace, psychologist with the Adult Intensive Care department at the Italian Hospital in Buenos Aires and head of the Older Adults section of the civic association Project: Unite.
“The question is whether the idea of active aging is just one more way to create mandates or rules for older adults, which make up such a heterogeneous and diverse generation,” said Ana Laura Vega, MD, psychiatrist with the Mental Health Department at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires.
Might it be better to speak of aging “as expected” or “aging well”? Speakers at the conference did not reach a consensus on which word would be the best to replace the adjective “active.”
“I don’t really see why there has to be an additional term when, at other stages of life, we only talk about ‘infancy,’ ‘adolescence,’ or ‘middle age,’ ” said Dr. Vega.
A thorny issue
Since the late 1990s, the WHO has defined active aging as “the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation, and security to enhance quality of life as people age.” This concept allows older adults to “realize their potential for physical, social, and mental well-being throughout the life course and to participate in society according to their needs, desires, and capacities, while providing them with adequate protection, security, and care when they require assistance.”
The organization clarifies that the word “active” refers to continuing participation in social, economic, cultural, spiritual, and civic affairs, not just the ability to be physically active or to participate in the labor force. “However, in practice, active aging programs invariably promote physical activity and exercise as having health and social benefits,” said sociologist Elizabeth Pike, PhD, head of the Research Unit in Sport, Physical Activity, and Aging at the University of Hertfordshire in the United Kingdom.
said Dr. Pedace. Along with laying out a single prescriptive way to age healthily, which by default makes passive aging “abnormal,” it also ignores demographic, ethnographic, and cultural differences.
“Each culture has different values. The suggestion of aging well in terms of activity, autonomy, and a happy-go-lucky mindset clearly reflects Western capitalistic values. In Eastern cultures, elderly people occupy a position reflecting their experience and wisdom, while also maintaining a contemplative mindset, which is something that is held in high regard. They are at the heart of the family, and their role is to guide and counsel the younger generations,” said Dr. Pedace.
The specialist added that there are programs inspired by active aging that prioritize outward, dynamic, and observable activities to the detriment of activities that take place behind the scenes such as reflection, analysis, and contemplation. “Following this mindset, an older individual who spends their time in contemplation would be somewhat wasting their sunset years. This raises a problem, because as the years go by and death approaches, spiritual life begins to gain far more significance. And that’s not an activity that is valued or recommended in the terms of this program,” she said.
Dr. Pedace went on to say that another concern with the active-aging program is that it seems to minimize certain characteristics that are unique to old age. Resulting physical, cognitive, and emotional changes can lead to reduced activity but are merely idiosyncrasies of this stage in life and are not pathologic.
Cecilia Guerstein, psychiatrist with the Older Adults Division of Project: United in Buenos Aires, cited Julieta Oddone, PhD, a sociologist on aging who believes that the theory of activity informs the underlying supposition of most programs for older adults: that social activity in itself is beneficial and results in greater fulfillment in life. And that all older people need and desire to stay active and engaged. “The idea is that the more active they are, the happier they will be,” said Dr. Guerstein.
“But ‘doing things’ isn’t necessarily appreciated by every elderly person, nor does it automatically lead to their well-being. The fact that some find a sense of well-being from it doesn’t mean we have to always do the same activities across different contexts. There are ethnographic studies that show that there isn’t necessarily a relationship between activity and well-being, or true social integration,” said Dr. Pedace.
Not a burden
Practically speaking, few would question whether physical activity has health benefits and believe that it’s never too late to start moving. Among his more than 45 tips on how to live to a ripe old age and “ripen” slowly and nicely, George D. Lundberg, MD, who is 90 years old, gives six recommendations for exercise: walking at least 2 miles every day, trying to swim every day, learning and practicing the techniques of yoga, deliberately lifting heavy objects (resistance training), and working on balance.
“A key for health care professionals encouraging exercise among older adults is knowing what to listen for and how to identify situations that motivate the person to exercise. For example, it could be walking their granddaughter down to the ice cream parlor,” Carolina Díaz, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Díaz is a geriatrics physician and the medical director of the Hirsch nursing and rehab center for older people in San Miguel, Argentina, which is home to 180 residents with an average age of 82 years.
“Exercise shouldn’t be a burden. If someone has never gone on walks before, I wouldn’t make them walk just because they ought to. Maybe they discover well-being in meeting up with their grandchildren or reading with someone. We believe that well-being is related to mobility, but for someone to move, they need the motivation. And until they have that, there won’t be any change,” said Dr. Díaz.
She added that a physician-patient relationship must be forged and an intervention plan drafted that revolves around the person and focuses on his or her current problems such as loneliness, difficulty walking, or pain. “Based on those problems, we can draw up a plan in which physical activity may play a part; other times, it may not.”
Osvaldo Bodni, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, former director of the Department for Older Adults within the Argentine Psychoanalytic Association and author of the book, Delegating Power in Human Aging: The Theory of Legacy and Passing the Baton) said in an interview: “Aging isn’t a disease, though it does increase vulnerability. The proposal of physical activity is not the only ‘antidote.’ In my opinion, serenity during aging provides even better protection against life’s storms.”
The physician went on to say, “Active aging programs promote physical activity because it’s easier to go on a walk with someone than it is to have a literature debate with them. However, the goal is to create a feeling of being part of a group. This isn’t bad, but it’s a replacement for family. Being part of a group has come to fill the place that was once filled by one’s children, grandchildren, and students.
“When the flood of change in modern society rushes in so quickly, there is a ‘programmed phase-out’ of knowledge, and the demand for experience drops off. It becomes less valuable, such that older adults often get more comfort from finding someone who is willing to show an interest in their stories. The best therapist is the one who listens; not necessarily the one who invites them on a walk or a bike ride,” concluded Dr. Bodni.
Dr. Vega, Dr. Guerstein, Dr. Díaz, Dr. Bodni, and Dr. Pedace have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition . A version appeared on Medscape.com.
MAR DEL PLATA, ARGENTINA – In the “active aging” vision promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO), older adults stay physically active, independent, and involved. This concept, though well-intentioned, is not very realistic and could easily be discouraging to individuals suffering from the psychological or physical limitations of old age. It also does not account for diversity among individuals and across cultures. These conclusions were presented by the Geriatric Psychiatry Chapter of the Argentine Psychiatric Association at its XXXVI Argentine Congress of Psychiatry.
“The WHO’s proposal of active aging is a prescriptive, standardized ideology that seems to suggest that being active is the only healthy way to age. However, that’s only part of the picture, and a biased part at that. It doesn’t account for the broad spectrum of aging processes that come in many shades,” said Mariana Pedace, psychologist with the Adult Intensive Care department at the Italian Hospital in Buenos Aires and head of the Older Adults section of the civic association Project: Unite.
“The question is whether the idea of active aging is just one more way to create mandates or rules for older adults, which make up such a heterogeneous and diverse generation,” said Ana Laura Vega, MD, psychiatrist with the Mental Health Department at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires.
Might it be better to speak of aging “as expected” or “aging well”? Speakers at the conference did not reach a consensus on which word would be the best to replace the adjective “active.”
“I don’t really see why there has to be an additional term when, at other stages of life, we only talk about ‘infancy,’ ‘adolescence,’ or ‘middle age,’ ” said Dr. Vega.
A thorny issue
Since the late 1990s, the WHO has defined active aging as “the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation, and security to enhance quality of life as people age.” This concept allows older adults to “realize their potential for physical, social, and mental well-being throughout the life course and to participate in society according to their needs, desires, and capacities, while providing them with adequate protection, security, and care when they require assistance.”
The organization clarifies that the word “active” refers to continuing participation in social, economic, cultural, spiritual, and civic affairs, not just the ability to be physically active or to participate in the labor force. “However, in practice, active aging programs invariably promote physical activity and exercise as having health and social benefits,” said sociologist Elizabeth Pike, PhD, head of the Research Unit in Sport, Physical Activity, and Aging at the University of Hertfordshire in the United Kingdom.
said Dr. Pedace. Along with laying out a single prescriptive way to age healthily, which by default makes passive aging “abnormal,” it also ignores demographic, ethnographic, and cultural differences.
“Each culture has different values. The suggestion of aging well in terms of activity, autonomy, and a happy-go-lucky mindset clearly reflects Western capitalistic values. In Eastern cultures, elderly people occupy a position reflecting their experience and wisdom, while also maintaining a contemplative mindset, which is something that is held in high regard. They are at the heart of the family, and their role is to guide and counsel the younger generations,” said Dr. Pedace.
The specialist added that there are programs inspired by active aging that prioritize outward, dynamic, and observable activities to the detriment of activities that take place behind the scenes such as reflection, analysis, and contemplation. “Following this mindset, an older individual who spends their time in contemplation would be somewhat wasting their sunset years. This raises a problem, because as the years go by and death approaches, spiritual life begins to gain far more significance. And that’s not an activity that is valued or recommended in the terms of this program,” she said.
Dr. Pedace went on to say that another concern with the active-aging program is that it seems to minimize certain characteristics that are unique to old age. Resulting physical, cognitive, and emotional changes can lead to reduced activity but are merely idiosyncrasies of this stage in life and are not pathologic.
Cecilia Guerstein, psychiatrist with the Older Adults Division of Project: United in Buenos Aires, cited Julieta Oddone, PhD, a sociologist on aging who believes that the theory of activity informs the underlying supposition of most programs for older adults: that social activity in itself is beneficial and results in greater fulfillment in life. And that all older people need and desire to stay active and engaged. “The idea is that the more active they are, the happier they will be,” said Dr. Guerstein.
“But ‘doing things’ isn’t necessarily appreciated by every elderly person, nor does it automatically lead to their well-being. The fact that some find a sense of well-being from it doesn’t mean we have to always do the same activities across different contexts. There are ethnographic studies that show that there isn’t necessarily a relationship between activity and well-being, or true social integration,” said Dr. Pedace.
Not a burden
Practically speaking, few would question whether physical activity has health benefits and believe that it’s never too late to start moving. Among his more than 45 tips on how to live to a ripe old age and “ripen” slowly and nicely, George D. Lundberg, MD, who is 90 years old, gives six recommendations for exercise: walking at least 2 miles every day, trying to swim every day, learning and practicing the techniques of yoga, deliberately lifting heavy objects (resistance training), and working on balance.
“A key for health care professionals encouraging exercise among older adults is knowing what to listen for and how to identify situations that motivate the person to exercise. For example, it could be walking their granddaughter down to the ice cream parlor,” Carolina Díaz, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Díaz is a geriatrics physician and the medical director of the Hirsch nursing and rehab center for older people in San Miguel, Argentina, which is home to 180 residents with an average age of 82 years.
“Exercise shouldn’t be a burden. If someone has never gone on walks before, I wouldn’t make them walk just because they ought to. Maybe they discover well-being in meeting up with their grandchildren or reading with someone. We believe that well-being is related to mobility, but for someone to move, they need the motivation. And until they have that, there won’t be any change,” said Dr. Díaz.
She added that a physician-patient relationship must be forged and an intervention plan drafted that revolves around the person and focuses on his or her current problems such as loneliness, difficulty walking, or pain. “Based on those problems, we can draw up a plan in which physical activity may play a part; other times, it may not.”
Osvaldo Bodni, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, former director of the Department for Older Adults within the Argentine Psychoanalytic Association and author of the book, Delegating Power in Human Aging: The Theory of Legacy and Passing the Baton) said in an interview: “Aging isn’t a disease, though it does increase vulnerability. The proposal of physical activity is not the only ‘antidote.’ In my opinion, serenity during aging provides even better protection against life’s storms.”
The physician went on to say, “Active aging programs promote physical activity because it’s easier to go on a walk with someone than it is to have a literature debate with them. However, the goal is to create a feeling of being part of a group. This isn’t bad, but it’s a replacement for family. Being part of a group has come to fill the place that was once filled by one’s children, grandchildren, and students.
“When the flood of change in modern society rushes in so quickly, there is a ‘programmed phase-out’ of knowledge, and the demand for experience drops off. It becomes less valuable, such that older adults often get more comfort from finding someone who is willing to show an interest in their stories. The best therapist is the one who listens; not necessarily the one who invites them on a walk or a bike ride,” concluded Dr. Bodni.
Dr. Vega, Dr. Guerstein, Dr. Díaz, Dr. Bodni, and Dr. Pedace have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition . A version appeared on Medscape.com.
MAR DEL PLATA, ARGENTINA – In the “active aging” vision promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO), older adults stay physically active, independent, and involved. This concept, though well-intentioned, is not very realistic and could easily be discouraging to individuals suffering from the psychological or physical limitations of old age. It also does not account for diversity among individuals and across cultures. These conclusions were presented by the Geriatric Psychiatry Chapter of the Argentine Psychiatric Association at its XXXVI Argentine Congress of Psychiatry.
“The WHO’s proposal of active aging is a prescriptive, standardized ideology that seems to suggest that being active is the only healthy way to age. However, that’s only part of the picture, and a biased part at that. It doesn’t account for the broad spectrum of aging processes that come in many shades,” said Mariana Pedace, psychologist with the Adult Intensive Care department at the Italian Hospital in Buenos Aires and head of the Older Adults section of the civic association Project: Unite.
“The question is whether the idea of active aging is just one more way to create mandates or rules for older adults, which make up such a heterogeneous and diverse generation,” said Ana Laura Vega, MD, psychiatrist with the Mental Health Department at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires.
Might it be better to speak of aging “as expected” or “aging well”? Speakers at the conference did not reach a consensus on which word would be the best to replace the adjective “active.”
“I don’t really see why there has to be an additional term when, at other stages of life, we only talk about ‘infancy,’ ‘adolescence,’ or ‘middle age,’ ” said Dr. Vega.
A thorny issue
Since the late 1990s, the WHO has defined active aging as “the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation, and security to enhance quality of life as people age.” This concept allows older adults to “realize their potential for physical, social, and mental well-being throughout the life course and to participate in society according to their needs, desires, and capacities, while providing them with adequate protection, security, and care when they require assistance.”
The organization clarifies that the word “active” refers to continuing participation in social, economic, cultural, spiritual, and civic affairs, not just the ability to be physically active or to participate in the labor force. “However, in practice, active aging programs invariably promote physical activity and exercise as having health and social benefits,” said sociologist Elizabeth Pike, PhD, head of the Research Unit in Sport, Physical Activity, and Aging at the University of Hertfordshire in the United Kingdom.
said Dr. Pedace. Along with laying out a single prescriptive way to age healthily, which by default makes passive aging “abnormal,” it also ignores demographic, ethnographic, and cultural differences.
“Each culture has different values. The suggestion of aging well in terms of activity, autonomy, and a happy-go-lucky mindset clearly reflects Western capitalistic values. In Eastern cultures, elderly people occupy a position reflecting their experience and wisdom, while also maintaining a contemplative mindset, which is something that is held in high regard. They are at the heart of the family, and their role is to guide and counsel the younger generations,” said Dr. Pedace.
The specialist added that there are programs inspired by active aging that prioritize outward, dynamic, and observable activities to the detriment of activities that take place behind the scenes such as reflection, analysis, and contemplation. “Following this mindset, an older individual who spends their time in contemplation would be somewhat wasting their sunset years. This raises a problem, because as the years go by and death approaches, spiritual life begins to gain far more significance. And that’s not an activity that is valued or recommended in the terms of this program,” she said.
Dr. Pedace went on to say that another concern with the active-aging program is that it seems to minimize certain characteristics that are unique to old age. Resulting physical, cognitive, and emotional changes can lead to reduced activity but are merely idiosyncrasies of this stage in life and are not pathologic.
Cecilia Guerstein, psychiatrist with the Older Adults Division of Project: United in Buenos Aires, cited Julieta Oddone, PhD, a sociologist on aging who believes that the theory of activity informs the underlying supposition of most programs for older adults: that social activity in itself is beneficial and results in greater fulfillment in life. And that all older people need and desire to stay active and engaged. “The idea is that the more active they are, the happier they will be,” said Dr. Guerstein.
“But ‘doing things’ isn’t necessarily appreciated by every elderly person, nor does it automatically lead to their well-being. The fact that some find a sense of well-being from it doesn’t mean we have to always do the same activities across different contexts. There are ethnographic studies that show that there isn’t necessarily a relationship between activity and well-being, or true social integration,” said Dr. Pedace.
Not a burden
Practically speaking, few would question whether physical activity has health benefits and believe that it’s never too late to start moving. Among his more than 45 tips on how to live to a ripe old age and “ripen” slowly and nicely, George D. Lundberg, MD, who is 90 years old, gives six recommendations for exercise: walking at least 2 miles every day, trying to swim every day, learning and practicing the techniques of yoga, deliberately lifting heavy objects (resistance training), and working on balance.
“A key for health care professionals encouraging exercise among older adults is knowing what to listen for and how to identify situations that motivate the person to exercise. For example, it could be walking their granddaughter down to the ice cream parlor,” Carolina Díaz, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Díaz is a geriatrics physician and the medical director of the Hirsch nursing and rehab center for older people in San Miguel, Argentina, which is home to 180 residents with an average age of 82 years.
“Exercise shouldn’t be a burden. If someone has never gone on walks before, I wouldn’t make them walk just because they ought to. Maybe they discover well-being in meeting up with their grandchildren or reading with someone. We believe that well-being is related to mobility, but for someone to move, they need the motivation. And until they have that, there won’t be any change,” said Dr. Díaz.
She added that a physician-patient relationship must be forged and an intervention plan drafted that revolves around the person and focuses on his or her current problems such as loneliness, difficulty walking, or pain. “Based on those problems, we can draw up a plan in which physical activity may play a part; other times, it may not.”
Osvaldo Bodni, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, former director of the Department for Older Adults within the Argentine Psychoanalytic Association and author of the book, Delegating Power in Human Aging: The Theory of Legacy and Passing the Baton) said in an interview: “Aging isn’t a disease, though it does increase vulnerability. The proposal of physical activity is not the only ‘antidote.’ In my opinion, serenity during aging provides even better protection against life’s storms.”
The physician went on to say, “Active aging programs promote physical activity because it’s easier to go on a walk with someone than it is to have a literature debate with them. However, the goal is to create a feeling of being part of a group. This isn’t bad, but it’s a replacement for family. Being part of a group has come to fill the place that was once filled by one’s children, grandchildren, and students.
“When the flood of change in modern society rushes in so quickly, there is a ‘programmed phase-out’ of knowledge, and the demand for experience drops off. It becomes less valuable, such that older adults often get more comfort from finding someone who is willing to show an interest in their stories. The best therapist is the one who listens; not necessarily the one who invites them on a walk or a bike ride,” concluded Dr. Bodni.
Dr. Vega, Dr. Guerstein, Dr. Díaz, Dr. Bodni, and Dr. Pedace have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition . A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Antibody linked to spontaneous reversal of ATTR-CM
Cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (also called ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy or ATTR-CM) is a progressive disease and a cause of heart failure resulting from accumulation of the protein transthyretin, which misfolds and forms amyloid deposits on the walls of the heart, causing both systolic and diastolic dysfunction.
The condition is progressive and normally fatal within a few years of diagnosis. Treatment options are limited and aimed at slowing progression; nothing has been shown to reverse the course of the disease.
However, an international team of researchers is now reporting the discovery of three patients with ATTR-CM–associated heart failure in whom the condition resolved spontaneously, with reversion to near normal cardiac structure and function. On further investigation, it was found that these three patients had developed circulating polyclonal IgG antibodies to human ATTR amyloid.
They are hopeful that a monoclonal form of these antibodies could be developed and may represent a novel treatment, or even a cure, for the condition.
The researchers report their findings in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We are very optimistic about this discovery of these antibodies. They could become the first treatment to clear the amyloid that causes this horribly progressive and fatal condition,” senior author Julian Gillmore, MD, head of the University College London Centre for Amyloidosis, based at the Royal Free Hospital, said in an interview.
“Obviously, there is a lot of work to do before we can say this is the case, but it is very exciting,” he added.
Dr. Gillmore explained how the antibodies were discovered. “This disease has a universally progressive course, but we had one patient who on a repeat appointment said he felt better and on detailed cardiac MRI imaging, we found that the amyloid in his heart had reduced. That is totally unheard of,” he said.
“We then looked back at our cohort of 1,663 patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy, and we discovered two others who had also improved both on imaging and clinically,” Dr. Gillmore said.
Each of these three patients reported a reduction in symptoms, although they had not received any new or potentially disease-modifying treatments. None of the patients had had recent vaccinations, notable infections, or any clinical suggestion of myocarditis.
Clinical recovery was corroborated by substantial improvement or normalization of findings on echocardiography, serum biomarker levels, and results of cardiopulmonary exercise tests and scintigraphy.
Serial cardiac MRI scans confirmed near-complete regression of myocardial extracellular volume, coupled with remodeling to near-normal cardiac structure and function without scarring.
The researchers wondered whether the changes in these patients may have been brought about by an antibody response. On further investigation, they found antibodies in the three patients that bound specifically to ATTR amyloid deposits in a transgenic mouse model of the condition, and to synthetic ATTR amyloid. No such antibodies were present in the other 350 patients in the cohort with a typical clinical course.
“The cause and clinical significance of the anti-ATTR amyloid antibodies are intriguing and presently unclear. However, the clinical recovery of these patients establishes the unanticipated potential for reversibility of ATTR-CM and raises expectations for its treatment,” the researchers conclude.
Dr. Gillmore said they didn’t know why these three patients had these antibodies, while all the other patients did not. “There must be something different about these patients. We don’t know what that is at present, but we are looking hard.”
The researchers are hoping that after this publication, other centers caring for patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy will look in their cohorts and see if they can identify other cases where there has been improvement.
“It is very plausible that they do have such cases, but they will be rare, as we all think of this disease as universally progressive and fatal,” Dr. Gillmore noted.
“We haven’t absolutely proven that the antibodies have caused the clearance of amyloid in these patients, but we strongly suspect this to be the case,” Dr. Gillmore said. The researchers are planning to try to confirm this by isolating the antibodies and treating the transgenic mice.
Dr. Gillmore attributed the current discovery to the development of novel imaging cardiac MRI techniques. “This allowed us to monitor closely the amyloid burden in the heart. The observation that this had diminished in these three patients was the breakthrough that led us to look for antibodies.”
Another antibody product directed against ATTR cardiomyopathy is also in development by Neurimmune, a Swiss biopharmaceutical company. A phase 1 study of this agent was recently published, suggesting that it appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart.
Dr. Gillmore said the antibody they have detected is different from the Neurimmune product.
The research was supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship, a Medical Research Council Career Development Award, and a project grant from the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Gillmore reports being a consultant or expert advisory board member for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, ATTRalus, Eidos Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (also called ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy or ATTR-CM) is a progressive disease and a cause of heart failure resulting from accumulation of the protein transthyretin, which misfolds and forms amyloid deposits on the walls of the heart, causing both systolic and diastolic dysfunction.
The condition is progressive and normally fatal within a few years of diagnosis. Treatment options are limited and aimed at slowing progression; nothing has been shown to reverse the course of the disease.
However, an international team of researchers is now reporting the discovery of three patients with ATTR-CM–associated heart failure in whom the condition resolved spontaneously, with reversion to near normal cardiac structure and function. On further investigation, it was found that these three patients had developed circulating polyclonal IgG antibodies to human ATTR amyloid.
They are hopeful that a monoclonal form of these antibodies could be developed and may represent a novel treatment, or even a cure, for the condition.
The researchers report their findings in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We are very optimistic about this discovery of these antibodies. They could become the first treatment to clear the amyloid that causes this horribly progressive and fatal condition,” senior author Julian Gillmore, MD, head of the University College London Centre for Amyloidosis, based at the Royal Free Hospital, said in an interview.
“Obviously, there is a lot of work to do before we can say this is the case, but it is very exciting,” he added.
Dr. Gillmore explained how the antibodies were discovered. “This disease has a universally progressive course, but we had one patient who on a repeat appointment said he felt better and on detailed cardiac MRI imaging, we found that the amyloid in his heart had reduced. That is totally unheard of,” he said.
“We then looked back at our cohort of 1,663 patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy, and we discovered two others who had also improved both on imaging and clinically,” Dr. Gillmore said.
Each of these three patients reported a reduction in symptoms, although they had not received any new or potentially disease-modifying treatments. None of the patients had had recent vaccinations, notable infections, or any clinical suggestion of myocarditis.
Clinical recovery was corroborated by substantial improvement or normalization of findings on echocardiography, serum biomarker levels, and results of cardiopulmonary exercise tests and scintigraphy.
Serial cardiac MRI scans confirmed near-complete regression of myocardial extracellular volume, coupled with remodeling to near-normal cardiac structure and function without scarring.
The researchers wondered whether the changes in these patients may have been brought about by an antibody response. On further investigation, they found antibodies in the three patients that bound specifically to ATTR amyloid deposits in a transgenic mouse model of the condition, and to synthetic ATTR amyloid. No such antibodies were present in the other 350 patients in the cohort with a typical clinical course.
“The cause and clinical significance of the anti-ATTR amyloid antibodies are intriguing and presently unclear. However, the clinical recovery of these patients establishes the unanticipated potential for reversibility of ATTR-CM and raises expectations for its treatment,” the researchers conclude.
Dr. Gillmore said they didn’t know why these three patients had these antibodies, while all the other patients did not. “There must be something different about these patients. We don’t know what that is at present, but we are looking hard.”
The researchers are hoping that after this publication, other centers caring for patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy will look in their cohorts and see if they can identify other cases where there has been improvement.
“It is very plausible that they do have such cases, but they will be rare, as we all think of this disease as universally progressive and fatal,” Dr. Gillmore noted.
“We haven’t absolutely proven that the antibodies have caused the clearance of amyloid in these patients, but we strongly suspect this to be the case,” Dr. Gillmore said. The researchers are planning to try to confirm this by isolating the antibodies and treating the transgenic mice.
Dr. Gillmore attributed the current discovery to the development of novel imaging cardiac MRI techniques. “This allowed us to monitor closely the amyloid burden in the heart. The observation that this had diminished in these three patients was the breakthrough that led us to look for antibodies.”
Another antibody product directed against ATTR cardiomyopathy is also in development by Neurimmune, a Swiss biopharmaceutical company. A phase 1 study of this agent was recently published, suggesting that it appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart.
Dr. Gillmore said the antibody they have detected is different from the Neurimmune product.
The research was supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship, a Medical Research Council Career Development Award, and a project grant from the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Gillmore reports being a consultant or expert advisory board member for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, ATTRalus, Eidos Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (also called ATTR amyloidosis cardiomyopathy or ATTR-CM) is a progressive disease and a cause of heart failure resulting from accumulation of the protein transthyretin, which misfolds and forms amyloid deposits on the walls of the heart, causing both systolic and diastolic dysfunction.
The condition is progressive and normally fatal within a few years of diagnosis. Treatment options are limited and aimed at slowing progression; nothing has been shown to reverse the course of the disease.
However, an international team of researchers is now reporting the discovery of three patients with ATTR-CM–associated heart failure in whom the condition resolved spontaneously, with reversion to near normal cardiac structure and function. On further investigation, it was found that these three patients had developed circulating polyclonal IgG antibodies to human ATTR amyloid.
They are hopeful that a monoclonal form of these antibodies could be developed and may represent a novel treatment, or even a cure, for the condition.
The researchers report their findings in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We are very optimistic about this discovery of these antibodies. They could become the first treatment to clear the amyloid that causes this horribly progressive and fatal condition,” senior author Julian Gillmore, MD, head of the University College London Centre for Amyloidosis, based at the Royal Free Hospital, said in an interview.
“Obviously, there is a lot of work to do before we can say this is the case, but it is very exciting,” he added.
Dr. Gillmore explained how the antibodies were discovered. “This disease has a universally progressive course, but we had one patient who on a repeat appointment said he felt better and on detailed cardiac MRI imaging, we found that the amyloid in his heart had reduced. That is totally unheard of,” he said.
“We then looked back at our cohort of 1,663 patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy, and we discovered two others who had also improved both on imaging and clinically,” Dr. Gillmore said.
Each of these three patients reported a reduction in symptoms, although they had not received any new or potentially disease-modifying treatments. None of the patients had had recent vaccinations, notable infections, or any clinical suggestion of myocarditis.
Clinical recovery was corroborated by substantial improvement or normalization of findings on echocardiography, serum biomarker levels, and results of cardiopulmonary exercise tests and scintigraphy.
Serial cardiac MRI scans confirmed near-complete regression of myocardial extracellular volume, coupled with remodeling to near-normal cardiac structure and function without scarring.
The researchers wondered whether the changes in these patients may have been brought about by an antibody response. On further investigation, they found antibodies in the three patients that bound specifically to ATTR amyloid deposits in a transgenic mouse model of the condition, and to synthetic ATTR amyloid. No such antibodies were present in the other 350 patients in the cohort with a typical clinical course.
“The cause and clinical significance of the anti-ATTR amyloid antibodies are intriguing and presently unclear. However, the clinical recovery of these patients establishes the unanticipated potential for reversibility of ATTR-CM and raises expectations for its treatment,” the researchers conclude.
Dr. Gillmore said they didn’t know why these three patients had these antibodies, while all the other patients did not. “There must be something different about these patients. We don’t know what that is at present, but we are looking hard.”
The researchers are hoping that after this publication, other centers caring for patients with ATTR-cardiomyopathy will look in their cohorts and see if they can identify other cases where there has been improvement.
“It is very plausible that they do have such cases, but they will be rare, as we all think of this disease as universally progressive and fatal,” Dr. Gillmore noted.
“We haven’t absolutely proven that the antibodies have caused the clearance of amyloid in these patients, but we strongly suspect this to be the case,” Dr. Gillmore said. The researchers are planning to try to confirm this by isolating the antibodies and treating the transgenic mice.
Dr. Gillmore attributed the current discovery to the development of novel imaging cardiac MRI techniques. “This allowed us to monitor closely the amyloid burden in the heart. The observation that this had diminished in these three patients was the breakthrough that led us to look for antibodies.”
Another antibody product directed against ATTR cardiomyopathy is also in development by Neurimmune, a Swiss biopharmaceutical company. A phase 1 study of this agent was recently published, suggesting that it appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart.
Dr. Gillmore said the antibody they have detected is different from the Neurimmune product.
The research was supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship, a Medical Research Council Career Development Award, and a project grant from the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Gillmore reports being a consultant or expert advisory board member for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, ATTRalus, Eidos Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
How does psoriasis affect fertility and birth outcomes?
in a U.K. cohort study.
Those are key findings from what is believed to be one of the largest studies to investigate fertility and obstetric outcomes in patients with psoriasis.
“Studies that have examined fertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis have reported conflicting findings,” lead author Teng-Chou Chen, PhD, of the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety at the University of Manchester (England), and colleagues from the Global Psoriasis Atlas wrote in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology. Most of the studies were small, with under 100 women, “and are thus likely underpowered to detect a difference in pregnancy outcomes. The majority of those studies used disease registry data or lacked a matched comparison group and hence were unable to estimate the association of fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis when compared with the general population.”
To determine fertility rates and birth outcomes in female patients with psoriasis, compared with age- and practice-matched patients without psoriasis, the researchers evaluated EHR data from a large U.K. primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, from 1998 to 2019. They limited the analysis to patients aged 15-44 years and used relevant codes from clinical consultations to identify those with psoriasis. Then, for each patient with psoriasis, the researchers selected five comparators without psoriasis from the same primary care practice and matched for year of birth.
Both sets of patients were followed from the index date to age 45 years, death, transfer out of practice, last date of data collection, or end of the study period (Dec. 31, 2019), whichever came first. Pregnancy records were extracted for both sets of patients, and birth outcomes were categorized as pregnancy loss, live birth, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also collected. Finally, Dr. Chen and colleagues used a negative binomial model to examine the association between psoriasis and the fertility rate, and they applied logistic regression to compare the association between psoriasis and obstetric outcomes.
The analysis included 63,681 patients with psoriasis and 318,405 comparators whose median age on the index date was 30 years and who were followed for a median of 4.1 years. Among patients with psoriasis, 5.1% met criteria for moderate to severe disease in the follow-up period. The researchers observed that, compared with their age- and practice-matched counterparts, patients with psoriasis were more likely to be current smokers, alcohol drinkers, or overweight on the index date. They were also more often diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Fertility, birth outcomes
When they looked at fertility outcomes, the researchers found that, compared with their matched peers without psoriasis, those with psoriasis had higher rates of fertility (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.33; P < .001). But after the researchers stratified patients based on psoriasis severity, those with moderate to severe disease had significantly lower rates of fertility (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .001), compared those who did not have psoriasis.
As for adverse birth outcomes, compared with their matched comparators, pregnancies in patients with psoriasis were less likely to end in a live birth (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P < .001). They also had a higher risk of pregnancy loss (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), most during the first trimester, at a gestation period of under 91 days.
In addition to psoriasis, patients younger than age 20 (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.94-2.15; P < .011) and those aged between 20 and 24 years (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.31-1.40; P < .001) had a higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those aged between 25 and 34 years.
However, no increases in the risks of antenatal hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes were observed in patients with psoriasis, and no statistically significant differences in the odds of stillbirth and preterm birth were found between patients with psoriasis and matched comparators who did not have psoriasis.
“The mechanism to link the higher risk of pregnancy loss in patients with psoriasis is not clear, but there might be potential explanations,” the researchers wrote. “Psoriasis is characterized by the increased activity of [interleukin]-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Those proinflammatory cytokines may negatively affect the placenta and cause impaired fetal growth.”
They recommended that further studies “evaluate the effects of better management of psoriasis and close monitoring during pregnancy on pregnancy loss.” In particular, “patients with psoriasis were more likely to have comorbidities that may be related to poor pregnancy outcomes, and hence increased emphasis of managing comorbidities as part of the routine management plan is also warranted.”
Asked to comment on the study, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, who has been involved with research on this topic, said that she and other investigators had observed some years ago that fertility rates for women with moderate to severe psoriasis might be lower than expected.
This trend was observed in some psoriasis registries, some pregnancy registries, and in clinical practice, Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This study clearly demonstrates that lower fertility rates in the moderate to severe psoriasis population occurs and compels further exploration of the reason why.” The reasons could be biologic, she continued, including difficulty conceiving or an increased risk of miscarriage, sociobehavioral issues, or a combination.
“Behavioral examples could include that some women with moderate to severe psoriasis can flare during pregnancy, which might affect their choice” to become pregnant, Dr. Kimball said. “Stigma may also play a role in how women with moderate to severe psoriasis form relationships. Now that there are much better treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis and better knowledge about managing psoriasis during pregnancy, it will also be important to explore whether these trends change over time.”
The study was funded by the International League of Dermatological Societies on behalf of the Global Psoriasis Atlas. Two of the study authors reported receiving consulting fees and grant support from many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kimball disclosed that she serves or has served on several Organization of Teratology Information Specialists advisory board pregnancy registries, is a consultant and investigator for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Moonlake, UCB, and Amgen; has fellowship funding from Janssen; and serves on the board of Almirall.
in a U.K. cohort study.
Those are key findings from what is believed to be one of the largest studies to investigate fertility and obstetric outcomes in patients with psoriasis.
“Studies that have examined fertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis have reported conflicting findings,” lead author Teng-Chou Chen, PhD, of the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety at the University of Manchester (England), and colleagues from the Global Psoriasis Atlas wrote in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology. Most of the studies were small, with under 100 women, “and are thus likely underpowered to detect a difference in pregnancy outcomes. The majority of those studies used disease registry data or lacked a matched comparison group and hence were unable to estimate the association of fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis when compared with the general population.”
To determine fertility rates and birth outcomes in female patients with psoriasis, compared with age- and practice-matched patients without psoriasis, the researchers evaluated EHR data from a large U.K. primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, from 1998 to 2019. They limited the analysis to patients aged 15-44 years and used relevant codes from clinical consultations to identify those with psoriasis. Then, for each patient with psoriasis, the researchers selected five comparators without psoriasis from the same primary care practice and matched for year of birth.
Both sets of patients were followed from the index date to age 45 years, death, transfer out of practice, last date of data collection, or end of the study period (Dec. 31, 2019), whichever came first. Pregnancy records were extracted for both sets of patients, and birth outcomes were categorized as pregnancy loss, live birth, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also collected. Finally, Dr. Chen and colleagues used a negative binomial model to examine the association between psoriasis and the fertility rate, and they applied logistic regression to compare the association between psoriasis and obstetric outcomes.
The analysis included 63,681 patients with psoriasis and 318,405 comparators whose median age on the index date was 30 years and who were followed for a median of 4.1 years. Among patients with psoriasis, 5.1% met criteria for moderate to severe disease in the follow-up period. The researchers observed that, compared with their age- and practice-matched counterparts, patients with psoriasis were more likely to be current smokers, alcohol drinkers, or overweight on the index date. They were also more often diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Fertility, birth outcomes
When they looked at fertility outcomes, the researchers found that, compared with their matched peers without psoriasis, those with psoriasis had higher rates of fertility (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.33; P < .001). But after the researchers stratified patients based on psoriasis severity, those with moderate to severe disease had significantly lower rates of fertility (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .001), compared those who did not have psoriasis.
As for adverse birth outcomes, compared with their matched comparators, pregnancies in patients with psoriasis were less likely to end in a live birth (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P < .001). They also had a higher risk of pregnancy loss (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), most during the first trimester, at a gestation period of under 91 days.
In addition to psoriasis, patients younger than age 20 (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.94-2.15; P < .011) and those aged between 20 and 24 years (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.31-1.40; P < .001) had a higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those aged between 25 and 34 years.
However, no increases in the risks of antenatal hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes were observed in patients with psoriasis, and no statistically significant differences in the odds of stillbirth and preterm birth were found between patients with psoriasis and matched comparators who did not have psoriasis.
“The mechanism to link the higher risk of pregnancy loss in patients with psoriasis is not clear, but there might be potential explanations,” the researchers wrote. “Psoriasis is characterized by the increased activity of [interleukin]-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Those proinflammatory cytokines may negatively affect the placenta and cause impaired fetal growth.”
They recommended that further studies “evaluate the effects of better management of psoriasis and close monitoring during pregnancy on pregnancy loss.” In particular, “patients with psoriasis were more likely to have comorbidities that may be related to poor pregnancy outcomes, and hence increased emphasis of managing comorbidities as part of the routine management plan is also warranted.”
Asked to comment on the study, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, who has been involved with research on this topic, said that she and other investigators had observed some years ago that fertility rates for women with moderate to severe psoriasis might be lower than expected.
This trend was observed in some psoriasis registries, some pregnancy registries, and in clinical practice, Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This study clearly demonstrates that lower fertility rates in the moderate to severe psoriasis population occurs and compels further exploration of the reason why.” The reasons could be biologic, she continued, including difficulty conceiving or an increased risk of miscarriage, sociobehavioral issues, or a combination.
“Behavioral examples could include that some women with moderate to severe psoriasis can flare during pregnancy, which might affect their choice” to become pregnant, Dr. Kimball said. “Stigma may also play a role in how women with moderate to severe psoriasis form relationships. Now that there are much better treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis and better knowledge about managing psoriasis during pregnancy, it will also be important to explore whether these trends change over time.”
The study was funded by the International League of Dermatological Societies on behalf of the Global Psoriasis Atlas. Two of the study authors reported receiving consulting fees and grant support from many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kimball disclosed that she serves or has served on several Organization of Teratology Information Specialists advisory board pregnancy registries, is a consultant and investigator for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Moonlake, UCB, and Amgen; has fellowship funding from Janssen; and serves on the board of Almirall.
in a U.K. cohort study.
Those are key findings from what is believed to be one of the largest studies to investigate fertility and obstetric outcomes in patients with psoriasis.
“Studies that have examined fertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis have reported conflicting findings,” lead author Teng-Chou Chen, PhD, of the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety at the University of Manchester (England), and colleagues from the Global Psoriasis Atlas wrote in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology. Most of the studies were small, with under 100 women, “and are thus likely underpowered to detect a difference in pregnancy outcomes. The majority of those studies used disease registry data or lacked a matched comparison group and hence were unable to estimate the association of fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis when compared with the general population.”
To determine fertility rates and birth outcomes in female patients with psoriasis, compared with age- and practice-matched patients without psoriasis, the researchers evaluated EHR data from a large U.K. primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, from 1998 to 2019. They limited the analysis to patients aged 15-44 years and used relevant codes from clinical consultations to identify those with psoriasis. Then, for each patient with psoriasis, the researchers selected five comparators without psoriasis from the same primary care practice and matched for year of birth.
Both sets of patients were followed from the index date to age 45 years, death, transfer out of practice, last date of data collection, or end of the study period (Dec. 31, 2019), whichever came first. Pregnancy records were extracted for both sets of patients, and birth outcomes were categorized as pregnancy loss, live birth, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also collected. Finally, Dr. Chen and colleagues used a negative binomial model to examine the association between psoriasis and the fertility rate, and they applied logistic regression to compare the association between psoriasis and obstetric outcomes.
The analysis included 63,681 patients with psoriasis and 318,405 comparators whose median age on the index date was 30 years and who were followed for a median of 4.1 years. Among patients with psoriasis, 5.1% met criteria for moderate to severe disease in the follow-up period. The researchers observed that, compared with their age- and practice-matched counterparts, patients with psoriasis were more likely to be current smokers, alcohol drinkers, or overweight on the index date. They were also more often diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Fertility, birth outcomes
When they looked at fertility outcomes, the researchers found that, compared with their matched peers without psoriasis, those with psoriasis had higher rates of fertility (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.33; P < .001). But after the researchers stratified patients based on psoriasis severity, those with moderate to severe disease had significantly lower rates of fertility (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .001), compared those who did not have psoriasis.
As for adverse birth outcomes, compared with their matched comparators, pregnancies in patients with psoriasis were less likely to end in a live birth (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P < .001). They also had a higher risk of pregnancy loss (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), most during the first trimester, at a gestation period of under 91 days.
In addition to psoriasis, patients younger than age 20 (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.94-2.15; P < .011) and those aged between 20 and 24 years (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.31-1.40; P < .001) had a higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those aged between 25 and 34 years.
However, no increases in the risks of antenatal hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes were observed in patients with psoriasis, and no statistically significant differences in the odds of stillbirth and preterm birth were found between patients with psoriasis and matched comparators who did not have psoriasis.
“The mechanism to link the higher risk of pregnancy loss in patients with psoriasis is not clear, but there might be potential explanations,” the researchers wrote. “Psoriasis is characterized by the increased activity of [interleukin]-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Those proinflammatory cytokines may negatively affect the placenta and cause impaired fetal growth.”
They recommended that further studies “evaluate the effects of better management of psoriasis and close monitoring during pregnancy on pregnancy loss.” In particular, “patients with psoriasis were more likely to have comorbidities that may be related to poor pregnancy outcomes, and hence increased emphasis of managing comorbidities as part of the routine management plan is also warranted.”
Asked to comment on the study, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, who has been involved with research on this topic, said that she and other investigators had observed some years ago that fertility rates for women with moderate to severe psoriasis might be lower than expected.
This trend was observed in some psoriasis registries, some pregnancy registries, and in clinical practice, Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This study clearly demonstrates that lower fertility rates in the moderate to severe psoriasis population occurs and compels further exploration of the reason why.” The reasons could be biologic, she continued, including difficulty conceiving or an increased risk of miscarriage, sociobehavioral issues, or a combination.
“Behavioral examples could include that some women with moderate to severe psoriasis can flare during pregnancy, which might affect their choice” to become pregnant, Dr. Kimball said. “Stigma may also play a role in how women with moderate to severe psoriasis form relationships. Now that there are much better treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis and better knowledge about managing psoriasis during pregnancy, it will also be important to explore whether these trends change over time.”
The study was funded by the International League of Dermatological Societies on behalf of the Global Psoriasis Atlas. Two of the study authors reported receiving consulting fees and grant support from many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kimball disclosed that she serves or has served on several Organization of Teratology Information Specialists advisory board pregnancy registries, is a consultant and investigator for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Moonlake, UCB, and Amgen; has fellowship funding from Janssen; and serves on the board of Almirall.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
EULAR PsA recommendations update emphasizes safety, nonmusculoskeletal manifestations
AT EULAR 2023
MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.
Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors
Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”
This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.
For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).
Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions
In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.
In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
Systemic glucocorticoids removed
Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.
NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis
Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.
The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.
The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.
In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
Which disease manifestation to treat first?
During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.
“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”
David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”
Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”
Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.
EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EULAR 2023
MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.
Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors
Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”
This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.
For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).
Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions
In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.
In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
Systemic glucocorticoids removed
Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.
NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis
Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.
The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.
The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.
In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
Which disease manifestation to treat first?
During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.
“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”
David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”
Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”
Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.
EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EULAR 2023
MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.
Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors
Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”
This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.
For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).
Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions
In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.
In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
Systemic glucocorticoids removed
Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.
NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis
Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.
The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.
The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.
In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
Which disease manifestation to treat first?
During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.
“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”
David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”
Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”
Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.
EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Big boost in sodium excretion with HF diuretic protocol
In patients with acute heart failure, a urine sodium-guided diuretic protocol, currently recommended in guidelines from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC), led to significant increases in natriuresis and diuresis over 2 days in the prospective ENACT-HF clinical trial.
The guideline protocol was based on a 2019 HFA position paper with expert consensus, but it had not been tested prospectively, Jeroen Dauw, MD, of AZ Sint-Lucas Ghent (Belgium), explained in a presentation at HFA-ESC 2023.
“We had 282 millimoles of sodium excretion after one day, which is an increase of 64%, compared with standard of care,” Dr. Dauw told meeting attendees. “We wanted to power for 15%, so we’re way above it, with a P value of lower than 0.001.”
The effect was consistent across predefined subgroups, he said. “In addition, there’s an even higher benefit in patients with a lower eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] and a higher home dose of loop diuretics, which might signal more diuretic resistance and more benefit of the protocol.”
After 2 days, the investigators saw 52% higher natriuresis and 33% higher diuresis, compared with usual care.
In an interview, Dr. Dauw said, “The protocol is feasible, safe, and very effective. Cardiologists might consider how to implement a similar protocol in their center to improve the care of their acute heart failure patients.”
Twice the oral home dose
The investigators conducted a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized pragmatic trial at 29 centers in 18 countries globally. “We aimed to recruit 500 to detect a 15% difference in natriuresis,” Dr. Dauw said in his presentation, “but because we were a really low-budget trial, we had to stop after 3 years of recruitment.”
Therefore, 401 patients participated, 254 in the SOC arm and 147 in the protocol arm, because of the sequential nature of the study; that is, patients in the SOC arm of the two-phase study were recruited first.
Patients’ mean age was 70 years, 38% were women, and they all had at least one sign of volume overload. They were on a maintenance daily diuretic dose of 40 mg of furosemide for a month or more, and the NT-proBNP was above 1,000.
In phase 1 of the study, all centers treated 10 consecutive patients according to the local standard of care, at the discretion of the physician. In phase 2, the centers again recruited and treated at least 10 consecutive patients, this time according to the standardized diuretic protocol.
In the protocol phase, patients were treated with twice the oral home dose as an IV bolus. “This meant if, for example, you have 40 mg of furosemide at home, then you receive 80 mg as a first bolus,” Dr. Dauw told attendees. A spot urine sample was taken after 2 hours, and the response was evaluated after 6 hours. A urine sodium above 50 millimoles per liter was considered a good response.
On the second day, patients were reevaluated in the morning using urine output as a measure of diuretic response. If it was above 3 L, then the same bolus was repeated again twice daily, with 6-12 hours between administrations.
As noted, after one day, natriuresis was 174 millimoles in the SOC arm versus 282 millimoles in the protocol group – an increase of 64%. The effect was consistent across subgroups, and those with a lower eGFR and a higher home dose of loop diuretics benefited more.
Furthermore, Dr. Dauw said, there was no interaction on the endpoints with SGLT2 inhibitor use at baseline.
After two days, natriuresis was 52% higher in the protocol group and diuresis was 33% higher.
However, there was no significant difference in weight loss and no difference in the congestion score.
“We did expect to see a difference in weight loss between the study groups, as higher natriuresis and diuresis would normally be associated with higher weight loss in the protocol group,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization. “However, looking back at the study design, weight was collected from the electronic health records and not rigorously collected by study nurses. Previous studies have shown discrepancies between fluid loss and weight loss, so this is an ‘explainable’ finding.”
Participants also had a relatively high congestion score at baseline, with edema above the knee and also some pleural effusion, he told meeting attendees. Therefore, it might take more time to see a change in congestion score in those patients.
The protocol also led to a shorter length of stay – one day less in the hospital – and was very safe on renal endpoints, Dr. Dauw concluded.
A session chair asked why only patients already on diuretics were included in the study, noting that in his clinic, about half of the admissions are de novo.
Dr. Dauw said that patients already taking diuretics chronically would benefit most from the protocol. “If patients are diuretic-naive, they probably will respond well to whatever you do; if you just give a higher dose, they will respond well,” he said. “We expected that the largest benefit would be in patients already taking diuretics because they have a higher chance of not responding well.”
“There also was a big difference in the starting dose,” he added. “In the SOC arm, the baseline dose was about 60 mg, whereas we gave 120 mg, and we could already see a high difference in the effect. So, in those patients, I think the gain is bigger if you follow the protocol.”
More data coming
Looking ahead, “we only showed efficacy in the first 2 days of treatment and a shorter length of stay, probably reflecting a faster decongestion, but we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization.
“It would be important to have a study where the protocol is followed until full decongestion is reached,” he said. “That way, we can directly prove that decongestion is better and/or faster with the protocol.”
“A good decongestive strategy is one that is fast, safe and effective in decreasing signs and symptoms that patients suffer from,” he added. “We believe our protocol can achieve that, but our study is only one piece of the puzzle.”
More data on natriuresis-guided decongestion is coming this year, he said, with the PUSH-AHF study from Groningen, the European DECONGEST study, and the U.S. ESCALATE study.
The study had no funding. Dr. Dauw declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In patients with acute heart failure, a urine sodium-guided diuretic protocol, currently recommended in guidelines from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC), led to significant increases in natriuresis and diuresis over 2 days in the prospective ENACT-HF clinical trial.
The guideline protocol was based on a 2019 HFA position paper with expert consensus, but it had not been tested prospectively, Jeroen Dauw, MD, of AZ Sint-Lucas Ghent (Belgium), explained in a presentation at HFA-ESC 2023.
“We had 282 millimoles of sodium excretion after one day, which is an increase of 64%, compared with standard of care,” Dr. Dauw told meeting attendees. “We wanted to power for 15%, so we’re way above it, with a P value of lower than 0.001.”
The effect was consistent across predefined subgroups, he said. “In addition, there’s an even higher benefit in patients with a lower eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] and a higher home dose of loop diuretics, which might signal more diuretic resistance and more benefit of the protocol.”
After 2 days, the investigators saw 52% higher natriuresis and 33% higher diuresis, compared with usual care.
In an interview, Dr. Dauw said, “The protocol is feasible, safe, and very effective. Cardiologists might consider how to implement a similar protocol in their center to improve the care of their acute heart failure patients.”
Twice the oral home dose
The investigators conducted a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized pragmatic trial at 29 centers in 18 countries globally. “We aimed to recruit 500 to detect a 15% difference in natriuresis,” Dr. Dauw said in his presentation, “but because we were a really low-budget trial, we had to stop after 3 years of recruitment.”
Therefore, 401 patients participated, 254 in the SOC arm and 147 in the protocol arm, because of the sequential nature of the study; that is, patients in the SOC arm of the two-phase study were recruited first.
Patients’ mean age was 70 years, 38% were women, and they all had at least one sign of volume overload. They were on a maintenance daily diuretic dose of 40 mg of furosemide for a month or more, and the NT-proBNP was above 1,000.
In phase 1 of the study, all centers treated 10 consecutive patients according to the local standard of care, at the discretion of the physician. In phase 2, the centers again recruited and treated at least 10 consecutive patients, this time according to the standardized diuretic protocol.
In the protocol phase, patients were treated with twice the oral home dose as an IV bolus. “This meant if, for example, you have 40 mg of furosemide at home, then you receive 80 mg as a first bolus,” Dr. Dauw told attendees. A spot urine sample was taken after 2 hours, and the response was evaluated after 6 hours. A urine sodium above 50 millimoles per liter was considered a good response.
On the second day, patients were reevaluated in the morning using urine output as a measure of diuretic response. If it was above 3 L, then the same bolus was repeated again twice daily, with 6-12 hours between administrations.
As noted, after one day, natriuresis was 174 millimoles in the SOC arm versus 282 millimoles in the protocol group – an increase of 64%. The effect was consistent across subgroups, and those with a lower eGFR and a higher home dose of loop diuretics benefited more.
Furthermore, Dr. Dauw said, there was no interaction on the endpoints with SGLT2 inhibitor use at baseline.
After two days, natriuresis was 52% higher in the protocol group and diuresis was 33% higher.
However, there was no significant difference in weight loss and no difference in the congestion score.
“We did expect to see a difference in weight loss between the study groups, as higher natriuresis and diuresis would normally be associated with higher weight loss in the protocol group,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization. “However, looking back at the study design, weight was collected from the electronic health records and not rigorously collected by study nurses. Previous studies have shown discrepancies between fluid loss and weight loss, so this is an ‘explainable’ finding.”
Participants also had a relatively high congestion score at baseline, with edema above the knee and also some pleural effusion, he told meeting attendees. Therefore, it might take more time to see a change in congestion score in those patients.
The protocol also led to a shorter length of stay – one day less in the hospital – and was very safe on renal endpoints, Dr. Dauw concluded.
A session chair asked why only patients already on diuretics were included in the study, noting that in his clinic, about half of the admissions are de novo.
Dr. Dauw said that patients already taking diuretics chronically would benefit most from the protocol. “If patients are diuretic-naive, they probably will respond well to whatever you do; if you just give a higher dose, they will respond well,” he said. “We expected that the largest benefit would be in patients already taking diuretics because they have a higher chance of not responding well.”
“There also was a big difference in the starting dose,” he added. “In the SOC arm, the baseline dose was about 60 mg, whereas we gave 120 mg, and we could already see a high difference in the effect. So, in those patients, I think the gain is bigger if you follow the protocol.”
More data coming
Looking ahead, “we only showed efficacy in the first 2 days of treatment and a shorter length of stay, probably reflecting a faster decongestion, but we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization.
“It would be important to have a study where the protocol is followed until full decongestion is reached,” he said. “That way, we can directly prove that decongestion is better and/or faster with the protocol.”
“A good decongestive strategy is one that is fast, safe and effective in decreasing signs and symptoms that patients suffer from,” he added. “We believe our protocol can achieve that, but our study is only one piece of the puzzle.”
More data on natriuresis-guided decongestion is coming this year, he said, with the PUSH-AHF study from Groningen, the European DECONGEST study, and the U.S. ESCALATE study.
The study had no funding. Dr. Dauw declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In patients with acute heart failure, a urine sodium-guided diuretic protocol, currently recommended in guidelines from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC), led to significant increases in natriuresis and diuresis over 2 days in the prospective ENACT-HF clinical trial.
The guideline protocol was based on a 2019 HFA position paper with expert consensus, but it had not been tested prospectively, Jeroen Dauw, MD, of AZ Sint-Lucas Ghent (Belgium), explained in a presentation at HFA-ESC 2023.
“We had 282 millimoles of sodium excretion after one day, which is an increase of 64%, compared with standard of care,” Dr. Dauw told meeting attendees. “We wanted to power for 15%, so we’re way above it, with a P value of lower than 0.001.”
The effect was consistent across predefined subgroups, he said. “In addition, there’s an even higher benefit in patients with a lower eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] and a higher home dose of loop diuretics, which might signal more diuretic resistance and more benefit of the protocol.”
After 2 days, the investigators saw 52% higher natriuresis and 33% higher diuresis, compared with usual care.
In an interview, Dr. Dauw said, “The protocol is feasible, safe, and very effective. Cardiologists might consider how to implement a similar protocol in their center to improve the care of their acute heart failure patients.”
Twice the oral home dose
The investigators conducted a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized pragmatic trial at 29 centers in 18 countries globally. “We aimed to recruit 500 to detect a 15% difference in natriuresis,” Dr. Dauw said in his presentation, “but because we were a really low-budget trial, we had to stop after 3 years of recruitment.”
Therefore, 401 patients participated, 254 in the SOC arm and 147 in the protocol arm, because of the sequential nature of the study; that is, patients in the SOC arm of the two-phase study were recruited first.
Patients’ mean age was 70 years, 38% were women, and they all had at least one sign of volume overload. They were on a maintenance daily diuretic dose of 40 mg of furosemide for a month or more, and the NT-proBNP was above 1,000.
In phase 1 of the study, all centers treated 10 consecutive patients according to the local standard of care, at the discretion of the physician. In phase 2, the centers again recruited and treated at least 10 consecutive patients, this time according to the standardized diuretic protocol.
In the protocol phase, patients were treated with twice the oral home dose as an IV bolus. “This meant if, for example, you have 40 mg of furosemide at home, then you receive 80 mg as a first bolus,” Dr. Dauw told attendees. A spot urine sample was taken after 2 hours, and the response was evaluated after 6 hours. A urine sodium above 50 millimoles per liter was considered a good response.
On the second day, patients were reevaluated in the morning using urine output as a measure of diuretic response. If it was above 3 L, then the same bolus was repeated again twice daily, with 6-12 hours between administrations.
As noted, after one day, natriuresis was 174 millimoles in the SOC arm versus 282 millimoles in the protocol group – an increase of 64%. The effect was consistent across subgroups, and those with a lower eGFR and a higher home dose of loop diuretics benefited more.
Furthermore, Dr. Dauw said, there was no interaction on the endpoints with SGLT2 inhibitor use at baseline.
After two days, natriuresis was 52% higher in the protocol group and diuresis was 33% higher.
However, there was no significant difference in weight loss and no difference in the congestion score.
“We did expect to see a difference in weight loss between the study groups, as higher natriuresis and diuresis would normally be associated with higher weight loss in the protocol group,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization. “However, looking back at the study design, weight was collected from the electronic health records and not rigorously collected by study nurses. Previous studies have shown discrepancies between fluid loss and weight loss, so this is an ‘explainable’ finding.”
Participants also had a relatively high congestion score at baseline, with edema above the knee and also some pleural effusion, he told meeting attendees. Therefore, it might take more time to see a change in congestion score in those patients.
The protocol also led to a shorter length of stay – one day less in the hospital – and was very safe on renal endpoints, Dr. Dauw concluded.
A session chair asked why only patients already on diuretics were included in the study, noting that in his clinic, about half of the admissions are de novo.
Dr. Dauw said that patients already taking diuretics chronically would benefit most from the protocol. “If patients are diuretic-naive, they probably will respond well to whatever you do; if you just give a higher dose, they will respond well,” he said. “We expected that the largest benefit would be in patients already taking diuretics because they have a higher chance of not responding well.”
“There also was a big difference in the starting dose,” he added. “In the SOC arm, the baseline dose was about 60 mg, whereas we gave 120 mg, and we could already see a high difference in the effect. So, in those patients, I think the gain is bigger if you follow the protocol.”
More data coming
Looking ahead, “we only showed efficacy in the first 2 days of treatment and a shorter length of stay, probably reflecting a faster decongestion, but we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization.
“It would be important to have a study where the protocol is followed until full decongestion is reached,” he said. “That way, we can directly prove that decongestion is better and/or faster with the protocol.”
“A good decongestive strategy is one that is fast, safe and effective in decreasing signs and symptoms that patients suffer from,” he added. “We believe our protocol can achieve that, but our study is only one piece of the puzzle.”
More data on natriuresis-guided decongestion is coming this year, he said, with the PUSH-AHF study from Groningen, the European DECONGEST study, and the U.S. ESCALATE study.
The study had no funding. Dr. Dauw declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM HFA-ESC 2023
Burnout threatens primary care workforce and doctors’ mental health
CHARLESTON, S.C. – Melanie Gray Miller, a 30-year-old physician, wiped away tears as she described the isolation she felt after losing a beloved patient.
“It was at the end of a night shift, when it seems like bad things always happen,” said Dr. Miller, who is training to become a pediatrician.
The infant had been sick for months in the Medical University of South Carolina’s pediatric intensive care unit and the possibility that he might not improve was obvious, Dr. Miller recalled during an April meeting with physicians and hospital administrators. But the suddenness of his death still caught her off guard.
“I have family and friends that I talk to about things,” she said. “But no one truly understands.”
Doctors don’t typically take time to grieve at work. But during that recent meeting, Dr. Miller and her colleagues opened up about the insomnia, emotional exhaustion, trauma, and burnout they experienced from their time in the pediatric ICU.
“This is not a normal place,” Grant Goodrich, the hospital system’s director of ethics, said to the group, acknowledging an occupational hazard the industry often downplays. “Most people don’t see kids die.”
The recurring conversation, scheduled for early-career doctors coming off month-long pediatric ICU rotations, is one way the hospital helps staffers cope with stress, according to Alyssa Rheingold, a licensed clinical psychologist who leads its resiliency program.
“Often the focus is to teach somebody how to do yoga and take a bath,” she said. “That’s not at all what well-being is about.”
Dr. Miller says working in the hospital’s pediatric intensive care unit can be tough. “In medicine, we’re just expected to be resilient 24/7,” she says. The trauma and stress from patients dying can be particularly hard to process.
Burnout in the health care industry is a widespread problem that long predates the COVID-19 pandemic, though the chaos introduced by the coronavirus’s spread made things worse, physicians and psychologists said. Health systems across the country are trying to boost morale and keep clinicians from quitting or retiring early, but the stakes are higher than workforce shortages.
Rates of physician suicide, partly fueled by burnout, have been a concern for decades.
“Why go into primary care when you can make twice the money doing something with half the stress?” said Daniel Crummett, a retired primary care doctor who lives in North Carolina. “I don’t know why anyone would go into primary care.”
Doctors say they are fed up with demands imposed by hospital administrators and health insurance companies, and they’re concerned about the notoriously grueling shifts assigned to medical residents during the early years of their careers. A long-standing stigma keeps physicians from prioritizing their own mental health, while their jobs require them to routinely grapple with death, grief, and trauma. The culture of medicine encourages them to simply bear it.
“Resiliency is a cringe word for me,” Dr. Miller said. “In medicine, we’re just expected to be resilient 24/7. I don’t love that culture.”
And though the pipeline of physicians entering the profession is strong, the ranks of doctors in the United States aren’t growing fast enough to meet future demand, according to the American Medical Association. That’s why burnout exacerbates workforce shortages and, if it continues, may limit the ability of some patients to access even basic care. A 2021 report published by the Association of American Medical Colleges projects the United States will be short as many as 48,000 primary care physicians by 2034, a higher number than any other single medical specialty.
A survey published last year by The Physicians Foundation, a nonprofit focused on improving health care, found more than half of the 1,501 responding doctors didn›t have positive feelings about the current or future state of the medical profession. More than 20% said they wanted to retire within a year.
Similarly, in a 2022 AMA survey of 11,000 doctors and other medical professionals, more than half reported feeling burned out and indicated they were experiencing a great deal of stress.
Those numbers appear to be even higher in primary care. Even before the pandemic, 70% of primary care providers and 89% of primary care residents reported feelings of burnout.
“Everyone in health care feels overworked,” said Gregg Coodley, a primary care physician in Portland, Ore., and author of the book “Patients in Peril: The Demise of Primary Care in America”
“I’m not saying there aren’t issues for other specialists, too, but in primary care, it’s the worst problem,” he said.
The high level of student debt most medical school graduates carry, combined with salaries more than four times as high as the average, deter many physicians from quitting medicine midcareer. Even primary care doctors, whose salaries are among the lowest of all medical specialties, are paid significantly more than the average American worker. That's why, instead of leaving the profession in their 30s or 40s, doctors often stay in their jobs but retire early.
“We go into medicine to help people, to take care of people, to do good in the world,” said Dr. Crummett, who retired from the Duke University hospital system in 2020 when he turned 65.
Dr. Crummett said he would have enjoyed working until he was 70, if not for the bureaucratic burdens of practicing medicine, including needing to get prior authorization from insurance companies before providing care, navigating cumbersome electronic health record platforms, and logging hours of administrative work outside the exam room.
“I enjoyed seeing patients. I really enjoyed my coworkers,” he said. “The administration was certainly a major factor in burnout.”
Jean Antonucci, a primary care doctor in rural Maine who retired from full-time work at 66, said she, too, would have kept working if not for the hassle of dealing with hospital administrators and insurance companies.
Once, Dr. Antonucci said, she had to call an insurance company – by landline and cellphone simultaneously, with one phone on each ear – to get prior authorization to conduct a CT scan, while her patient in need of an appendectomy waited in pain. The hospital wouldn’t conduct the scan without insurance approval.
“It was just infuriating,” said Dr. Antonucci, who now practices medicine only 1 day a week. “I could have kept working. I just got tired.”
Providers’ collective exhaustion is a crisis kept hidden by design, said Whitney Marvin, a pediatrician who works in the pediatric ICU at the Medical University of South Carolina. She said hospital culture implicitly teaches doctors to tamp down their emotions and to “keep moving.”
“I’m not supposed to be weak, and I’m not supposed to cry, and I’m not supposed to have all these emotions, because then maybe I’m not good enough at my job,” said Dr. Marvin, describing the way doctors have historically thought about their mental health.
This mentality prevents many doctors from seeking the help they need, which can lead to burnout – and much worse. An estimated 300 physicians die by suicide every year, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. The problem is particularly pronounced among female physicians, who die by suicide at a significantly higher rate than women in other professions.
A March report from this news organization found, of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed, 9% of male physicians and 11% of female physicians said they have had suicidal thoughts. But the problem isn’t new, the report noted. Elevated rates of suicide among physicians have been documented for 150 years.
“Ironically, it’s happening to a group of people who should have the easiest access to mental health care,” said Gary Price, a Connecticut surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation.
But the reluctance to seek help isn’t unfounded, said Corey Feist, president of the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation .
“There’s something known in residency as the ‘silent curriculum,’ ” Mr. Feist said in describing an often-unspoken understanding among doctors that seeking mental health treatment could jeopardize their livelihood.
Mr. Feist’s sister-in-law, emergency room physician Lorna Breen, died by suicide during the early months of the pandemic. Dr. Breen sought inpatient treatment for mental health once, Mr. Feist said, but feared that her medical license could be revoked for doing so.
The foundation works to change laws across the country to prohibit medical boards and hospitals from asking doctors invasive mental health questions on employment or license applications.
“These people need to be taken care of by us, because really, no one’s looking out for them,” Mr. Feist said.
In Charleston, psychologists are made available to physicians during group meetings like the one Dr. Miller attended, as part of the resiliency program.
But fixing the burnout problem also requires a cultural change, especially among older physicians.
“They had it worse and we know that. But it’s still not good,” Dr. Miller said. “Until that changes, we’re just going to continue burning out physicians within the first 3 years of their career.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
CHARLESTON, S.C. – Melanie Gray Miller, a 30-year-old physician, wiped away tears as she described the isolation she felt after losing a beloved patient.
“It was at the end of a night shift, when it seems like bad things always happen,” said Dr. Miller, who is training to become a pediatrician.
The infant had been sick for months in the Medical University of South Carolina’s pediatric intensive care unit and the possibility that he might not improve was obvious, Dr. Miller recalled during an April meeting with physicians and hospital administrators. But the suddenness of his death still caught her off guard.
“I have family and friends that I talk to about things,” she said. “But no one truly understands.”
Doctors don’t typically take time to grieve at work. But during that recent meeting, Dr. Miller and her colleagues opened up about the insomnia, emotional exhaustion, trauma, and burnout they experienced from their time in the pediatric ICU.
“This is not a normal place,” Grant Goodrich, the hospital system’s director of ethics, said to the group, acknowledging an occupational hazard the industry often downplays. “Most people don’t see kids die.”
The recurring conversation, scheduled for early-career doctors coming off month-long pediatric ICU rotations, is one way the hospital helps staffers cope with stress, according to Alyssa Rheingold, a licensed clinical psychologist who leads its resiliency program.
“Often the focus is to teach somebody how to do yoga and take a bath,” she said. “That’s not at all what well-being is about.”
Dr. Miller says working in the hospital’s pediatric intensive care unit can be tough. “In medicine, we’re just expected to be resilient 24/7,” she says. The trauma and stress from patients dying can be particularly hard to process.
Burnout in the health care industry is a widespread problem that long predates the COVID-19 pandemic, though the chaos introduced by the coronavirus’s spread made things worse, physicians and psychologists said. Health systems across the country are trying to boost morale and keep clinicians from quitting or retiring early, but the stakes are higher than workforce shortages.
Rates of physician suicide, partly fueled by burnout, have been a concern for decades.
“Why go into primary care when you can make twice the money doing something with half the stress?” said Daniel Crummett, a retired primary care doctor who lives in North Carolina. “I don’t know why anyone would go into primary care.”
Doctors say they are fed up with demands imposed by hospital administrators and health insurance companies, and they’re concerned about the notoriously grueling shifts assigned to medical residents during the early years of their careers. A long-standing stigma keeps physicians from prioritizing their own mental health, while their jobs require them to routinely grapple with death, grief, and trauma. The culture of medicine encourages them to simply bear it.
“Resiliency is a cringe word for me,” Dr. Miller said. “In medicine, we’re just expected to be resilient 24/7. I don’t love that culture.”
And though the pipeline of physicians entering the profession is strong, the ranks of doctors in the United States aren’t growing fast enough to meet future demand, according to the American Medical Association. That’s why burnout exacerbates workforce shortages and, if it continues, may limit the ability of some patients to access even basic care. A 2021 report published by the Association of American Medical Colleges projects the United States will be short as many as 48,000 primary care physicians by 2034, a higher number than any other single medical specialty.
A survey published last year by The Physicians Foundation, a nonprofit focused on improving health care, found more than half of the 1,501 responding doctors didn›t have positive feelings about the current or future state of the medical profession. More than 20% said they wanted to retire within a year.
Similarly, in a 2022 AMA survey of 11,000 doctors and other medical professionals, more than half reported feeling burned out and indicated they were experiencing a great deal of stress.
Those numbers appear to be even higher in primary care. Even before the pandemic, 70% of primary care providers and 89% of primary care residents reported feelings of burnout.
“Everyone in health care feels overworked,” said Gregg Coodley, a primary care physician in Portland, Ore., and author of the book “Patients in Peril: The Demise of Primary Care in America”
“I’m not saying there aren’t issues for other specialists, too, but in primary care, it’s the worst problem,” he said.
The high level of student debt most medical school graduates carry, combined with salaries more than four times as high as the average, deter many physicians from quitting medicine midcareer. Even primary care doctors, whose salaries are among the lowest of all medical specialties, are paid significantly more than the average American worker. That's why, instead of leaving the profession in their 30s or 40s, doctors often stay in their jobs but retire early.
“We go into medicine to help people, to take care of people, to do good in the world,” said Dr. Crummett, who retired from the Duke University hospital system in 2020 when he turned 65.
Dr. Crummett said he would have enjoyed working until he was 70, if not for the bureaucratic burdens of practicing medicine, including needing to get prior authorization from insurance companies before providing care, navigating cumbersome electronic health record platforms, and logging hours of administrative work outside the exam room.
“I enjoyed seeing patients. I really enjoyed my coworkers,” he said. “The administration was certainly a major factor in burnout.”
Jean Antonucci, a primary care doctor in rural Maine who retired from full-time work at 66, said she, too, would have kept working if not for the hassle of dealing with hospital administrators and insurance companies.
Once, Dr. Antonucci said, she had to call an insurance company – by landline and cellphone simultaneously, with one phone on each ear – to get prior authorization to conduct a CT scan, while her patient in need of an appendectomy waited in pain. The hospital wouldn’t conduct the scan without insurance approval.
“It was just infuriating,” said Dr. Antonucci, who now practices medicine only 1 day a week. “I could have kept working. I just got tired.”
Providers’ collective exhaustion is a crisis kept hidden by design, said Whitney Marvin, a pediatrician who works in the pediatric ICU at the Medical University of South Carolina. She said hospital culture implicitly teaches doctors to tamp down their emotions and to “keep moving.”
“I’m not supposed to be weak, and I’m not supposed to cry, and I’m not supposed to have all these emotions, because then maybe I’m not good enough at my job,” said Dr. Marvin, describing the way doctors have historically thought about their mental health.
This mentality prevents many doctors from seeking the help they need, which can lead to burnout – and much worse. An estimated 300 physicians die by suicide every year, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. The problem is particularly pronounced among female physicians, who die by suicide at a significantly higher rate than women in other professions.
A March report from this news organization found, of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed, 9% of male physicians and 11% of female physicians said they have had suicidal thoughts. But the problem isn’t new, the report noted. Elevated rates of suicide among physicians have been documented for 150 years.
“Ironically, it’s happening to a group of people who should have the easiest access to mental health care,” said Gary Price, a Connecticut surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation.
But the reluctance to seek help isn’t unfounded, said Corey Feist, president of the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation .
“There’s something known in residency as the ‘silent curriculum,’ ” Mr. Feist said in describing an often-unspoken understanding among doctors that seeking mental health treatment could jeopardize their livelihood.
Mr. Feist’s sister-in-law, emergency room physician Lorna Breen, died by suicide during the early months of the pandemic. Dr. Breen sought inpatient treatment for mental health once, Mr. Feist said, but feared that her medical license could be revoked for doing so.
The foundation works to change laws across the country to prohibit medical boards and hospitals from asking doctors invasive mental health questions on employment or license applications.
“These people need to be taken care of by us, because really, no one’s looking out for them,” Mr. Feist said.
In Charleston, psychologists are made available to physicians during group meetings like the one Dr. Miller attended, as part of the resiliency program.
But fixing the burnout problem also requires a cultural change, especially among older physicians.
“They had it worse and we know that. But it’s still not good,” Dr. Miller said. “Until that changes, we’re just going to continue burning out physicians within the first 3 years of their career.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
CHARLESTON, S.C. – Melanie Gray Miller, a 30-year-old physician, wiped away tears as she described the isolation she felt after losing a beloved patient.
“It was at the end of a night shift, when it seems like bad things always happen,” said Dr. Miller, who is training to become a pediatrician.
The infant had been sick for months in the Medical University of South Carolina’s pediatric intensive care unit and the possibility that he might not improve was obvious, Dr. Miller recalled during an April meeting with physicians and hospital administrators. But the suddenness of his death still caught her off guard.
“I have family and friends that I talk to about things,” she said. “But no one truly understands.”
Doctors don’t typically take time to grieve at work. But during that recent meeting, Dr. Miller and her colleagues opened up about the insomnia, emotional exhaustion, trauma, and burnout they experienced from their time in the pediatric ICU.
“This is not a normal place,” Grant Goodrich, the hospital system’s director of ethics, said to the group, acknowledging an occupational hazard the industry often downplays. “Most people don’t see kids die.”
The recurring conversation, scheduled for early-career doctors coming off month-long pediatric ICU rotations, is one way the hospital helps staffers cope with stress, according to Alyssa Rheingold, a licensed clinical psychologist who leads its resiliency program.
“Often the focus is to teach somebody how to do yoga and take a bath,” she said. “That’s not at all what well-being is about.”
Dr. Miller says working in the hospital’s pediatric intensive care unit can be tough. “In medicine, we’re just expected to be resilient 24/7,” she says. The trauma and stress from patients dying can be particularly hard to process.
Burnout in the health care industry is a widespread problem that long predates the COVID-19 pandemic, though the chaos introduced by the coronavirus’s spread made things worse, physicians and psychologists said. Health systems across the country are trying to boost morale and keep clinicians from quitting or retiring early, but the stakes are higher than workforce shortages.
Rates of physician suicide, partly fueled by burnout, have been a concern for decades.
“Why go into primary care when you can make twice the money doing something with half the stress?” said Daniel Crummett, a retired primary care doctor who lives in North Carolina. “I don’t know why anyone would go into primary care.”
Doctors say they are fed up with demands imposed by hospital administrators and health insurance companies, and they’re concerned about the notoriously grueling shifts assigned to medical residents during the early years of their careers. A long-standing stigma keeps physicians from prioritizing their own mental health, while their jobs require them to routinely grapple with death, grief, and trauma. The culture of medicine encourages them to simply bear it.
“Resiliency is a cringe word for me,” Dr. Miller said. “In medicine, we’re just expected to be resilient 24/7. I don’t love that culture.”
And though the pipeline of physicians entering the profession is strong, the ranks of doctors in the United States aren’t growing fast enough to meet future demand, according to the American Medical Association. That’s why burnout exacerbates workforce shortages and, if it continues, may limit the ability of some patients to access even basic care. A 2021 report published by the Association of American Medical Colleges projects the United States will be short as many as 48,000 primary care physicians by 2034, a higher number than any other single medical specialty.
A survey published last year by The Physicians Foundation, a nonprofit focused on improving health care, found more than half of the 1,501 responding doctors didn›t have positive feelings about the current or future state of the medical profession. More than 20% said they wanted to retire within a year.
Similarly, in a 2022 AMA survey of 11,000 doctors and other medical professionals, more than half reported feeling burned out and indicated they were experiencing a great deal of stress.
Those numbers appear to be even higher in primary care. Even before the pandemic, 70% of primary care providers and 89% of primary care residents reported feelings of burnout.
“Everyone in health care feels overworked,” said Gregg Coodley, a primary care physician in Portland, Ore., and author of the book “Patients in Peril: The Demise of Primary Care in America”
“I’m not saying there aren’t issues for other specialists, too, but in primary care, it’s the worst problem,” he said.
The high level of student debt most medical school graduates carry, combined with salaries more than four times as high as the average, deter many physicians from quitting medicine midcareer. Even primary care doctors, whose salaries are among the lowest of all medical specialties, are paid significantly more than the average American worker. That's why, instead of leaving the profession in their 30s or 40s, doctors often stay in their jobs but retire early.
“We go into medicine to help people, to take care of people, to do good in the world,” said Dr. Crummett, who retired from the Duke University hospital system in 2020 when he turned 65.
Dr. Crummett said he would have enjoyed working until he was 70, if not for the bureaucratic burdens of practicing medicine, including needing to get prior authorization from insurance companies before providing care, navigating cumbersome electronic health record platforms, and logging hours of administrative work outside the exam room.
“I enjoyed seeing patients. I really enjoyed my coworkers,” he said. “The administration was certainly a major factor in burnout.”
Jean Antonucci, a primary care doctor in rural Maine who retired from full-time work at 66, said she, too, would have kept working if not for the hassle of dealing with hospital administrators and insurance companies.
Once, Dr. Antonucci said, she had to call an insurance company – by landline and cellphone simultaneously, with one phone on each ear – to get prior authorization to conduct a CT scan, while her patient in need of an appendectomy waited in pain. The hospital wouldn’t conduct the scan without insurance approval.
“It was just infuriating,” said Dr. Antonucci, who now practices medicine only 1 day a week. “I could have kept working. I just got tired.”
Providers’ collective exhaustion is a crisis kept hidden by design, said Whitney Marvin, a pediatrician who works in the pediatric ICU at the Medical University of South Carolina. She said hospital culture implicitly teaches doctors to tamp down their emotions and to “keep moving.”
“I’m not supposed to be weak, and I’m not supposed to cry, and I’m not supposed to have all these emotions, because then maybe I’m not good enough at my job,” said Dr. Marvin, describing the way doctors have historically thought about their mental health.
This mentality prevents many doctors from seeking the help they need, which can lead to burnout – and much worse. An estimated 300 physicians die by suicide every year, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. The problem is particularly pronounced among female physicians, who die by suicide at a significantly higher rate than women in other professions.
A March report from this news organization found, of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed, 9% of male physicians and 11% of female physicians said they have had suicidal thoughts. But the problem isn’t new, the report noted. Elevated rates of suicide among physicians have been documented for 150 years.
“Ironically, it’s happening to a group of people who should have the easiest access to mental health care,” said Gary Price, a Connecticut surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation.
But the reluctance to seek help isn’t unfounded, said Corey Feist, president of the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation .
“There’s something known in residency as the ‘silent curriculum,’ ” Mr. Feist said in describing an often-unspoken understanding among doctors that seeking mental health treatment could jeopardize their livelihood.
Mr. Feist’s sister-in-law, emergency room physician Lorna Breen, died by suicide during the early months of the pandemic. Dr. Breen sought inpatient treatment for mental health once, Mr. Feist said, but feared that her medical license could be revoked for doing so.
The foundation works to change laws across the country to prohibit medical boards and hospitals from asking doctors invasive mental health questions on employment or license applications.
“These people need to be taken care of by us, because really, no one’s looking out for them,” Mr. Feist said.
In Charleston, psychologists are made available to physicians during group meetings like the one Dr. Miller attended, as part of the resiliency program.
But fixing the burnout problem also requires a cultural change, especially among older physicians.
“They had it worse and we know that. But it’s still not good,” Dr. Miller said. “Until that changes, we’re just going to continue burning out physicians within the first 3 years of their career.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Low-carb breakfast key to lower glucose variability in T2D?
These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.
“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”
“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”
The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?
People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.
And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.
They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.
They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.
The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.
After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.
The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.
The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m2, and A1c of 7.0%.
Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.
Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.
Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.
Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.
The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.
The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.
They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.
The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
Intervention improved CGM measures
There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).
Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.
However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).
Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).
In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.
This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.
“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”
“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”
The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?
People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.
And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.
They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.
They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.
The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.
After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.
The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.
The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m2, and A1c of 7.0%.
Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.
Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.
Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.
Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.
The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.
The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.
They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.
The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
Intervention improved CGM measures
There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).
Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.
However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).
Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).
In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.
This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.
“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”
“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”
The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?
People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.
And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.
They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.
They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.
The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.
After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.
The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.
The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m2, and A1c of 7.0%.
Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.
Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.
Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.
Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.
The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.
The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.
They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.
The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
Intervention improved CGM measures
There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).
Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.
However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).
Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).
In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.
This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
CAR-T hikes overall survival in relapsed/refractory LBCL
.
The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.
The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.
Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.
“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.
Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).
Study details
Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.
Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).
At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).
The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.
Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.
Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.
The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.
.
The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.
The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.
Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.
“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.
Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).
Study details
Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.
Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).
At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).
The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.
Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.
Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.
The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.
.
The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.
The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.
Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.
“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.
Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).
Study details
Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.
Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).
At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).
The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.
Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.
Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.
The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.
FROM ASCO 2023
Kangaroo mother care may cut death risk for premature babies by a third
, according to new research published online in BMJ Global Health.
Starting the contact, which involves mothers carrying the newborn in a sling, within 24 hours of birth and continuing it for at least 8 hours a day both appear to amplify the effect on reducing mortality and infection, the paper states.
Sindhu Sivanandan, MD, with the department of neonatology at Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India, and Mari Jeeva Sankar, MD, in the pediatrics department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, looked at existing studies to compare KMC with conventional care and to compare starting the intervention within 24 hours of birth versus a later start.
Their review looked at 31 trials that included 15,559 low-birthweight and preterm infants collectively. Of the 31 trials, 27 studies compared KMC with conventional care and four compared early with late initiation of KMC.
Mortality risk reduction
Analysis showed that, compared with conventional care, KMC appeared to cut mortality risk by 32% (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.86) during birth hospitalization or by 28 days after birth, while it seemed to reduce the risk of severe infection, such as sepsis, by 15% (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; low-certainty evidence.)
That mortality-risk reduction was found regardless of gestational age or weight of the child at enrolment, time of starting KMC, and whether the intervention was started in a hospital or community.
The studies that had compared early with late-initiated KMC showed a reduction in neonatal mortality of 33%.
Low- and middle-income countries have the highest rates of premature births (gestational age of less than 37 weeks) and low birthweight (less than 2,500 grams). Premature births and low birthweight both are key causes of death and disability.
The World Health Organization recommends KMC as the standard of care among low birthweight infants after clinical stabilization. The American Academy of Pediatrics also promotes immediate KMC.
Relevance in the U.S.
Grace Chan, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist and pediatrician with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said though the practice is promoted by the WHO and AAP, recommendations to families vary widely by providers.
She said the health benefits for KMC are numerous. One of the biggest is that skin-to-skin contact can help transfer heat to newborns who may have trouble regulating their own temperature. That is especially important in cold climates in places where there may be insufficient indoor heat.
She said it’s well-known that preterm babies are at higher risk for apnea, and listening to a mother’s heartbeat may stimulate the child to breathe regularly.
Additionally with KMC, there’s an inherent benefit of a mother or caregiver being able to see any change in a newborn’s color immediately when the baby is held so closely, as opposed to a nurse watching several babies at a time in a neonatal intensive care unit.
This is evidence that starting KMC right away is important, because the risk of death for premature and low-weight newborns is highest in the first 24 hours of life, Dr. Chan noted.
Barriers of time
There are some barriers, she noted, in that mothers or other caregivers caring for several young children may not have the time to carry a child in a sling for 8 or more hours at a time.
The authors conclude that their findings have policy implications, particularly for low- and middle-income countries: “KMC should be provided to all low birth weight and preterm infants irrespective of the settings – both health facilities and at home,” they wrote.
The authors caution that, “very low birth weight, extremely preterm neonates, and severely unstable neonates were often excluded from studies. More evidence is needed before extrapolating the study results in these high-risk groups.”
The study authors and Dr. Chan report no relevant financial relationships.
, according to new research published online in BMJ Global Health.
Starting the contact, which involves mothers carrying the newborn in a sling, within 24 hours of birth and continuing it for at least 8 hours a day both appear to amplify the effect on reducing mortality and infection, the paper states.
Sindhu Sivanandan, MD, with the department of neonatology at Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India, and Mari Jeeva Sankar, MD, in the pediatrics department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, looked at existing studies to compare KMC with conventional care and to compare starting the intervention within 24 hours of birth versus a later start.
Their review looked at 31 trials that included 15,559 low-birthweight and preterm infants collectively. Of the 31 trials, 27 studies compared KMC with conventional care and four compared early with late initiation of KMC.
Mortality risk reduction
Analysis showed that, compared with conventional care, KMC appeared to cut mortality risk by 32% (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.86) during birth hospitalization or by 28 days after birth, while it seemed to reduce the risk of severe infection, such as sepsis, by 15% (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; low-certainty evidence.)
That mortality-risk reduction was found regardless of gestational age or weight of the child at enrolment, time of starting KMC, and whether the intervention was started in a hospital or community.
The studies that had compared early with late-initiated KMC showed a reduction in neonatal mortality of 33%.
Low- and middle-income countries have the highest rates of premature births (gestational age of less than 37 weeks) and low birthweight (less than 2,500 grams). Premature births and low birthweight both are key causes of death and disability.
The World Health Organization recommends KMC as the standard of care among low birthweight infants after clinical stabilization. The American Academy of Pediatrics also promotes immediate KMC.
Relevance in the U.S.
Grace Chan, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist and pediatrician with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said though the practice is promoted by the WHO and AAP, recommendations to families vary widely by providers.
She said the health benefits for KMC are numerous. One of the biggest is that skin-to-skin contact can help transfer heat to newborns who may have trouble regulating their own temperature. That is especially important in cold climates in places where there may be insufficient indoor heat.
She said it’s well-known that preterm babies are at higher risk for apnea, and listening to a mother’s heartbeat may stimulate the child to breathe regularly.
Additionally with KMC, there’s an inherent benefit of a mother or caregiver being able to see any change in a newborn’s color immediately when the baby is held so closely, as opposed to a nurse watching several babies at a time in a neonatal intensive care unit.
This is evidence that starting KMC right away is important, because the risk of death for premature and low-weight newborns is highest in the first 24 hours of life, Dr. Chan noted.
Barriers of time
There are some barriers, she noted, in that mothers or other caregivers caring for several young children may not have the time to carry a child in a sling for 8 or more hours at a time.
The authors conclude that their findings have policy implications, particularly for low- and middle-income countries: “KMC should be provided to all low birth weight and preterm infants irrespective of the settings – both health facilities and at home,” they wrote.
The authors caution that, “very low birth weight, extremely preterm neonates, and severely unstable neonates were often excluded from studies. More evidence is needed before extrapolating the study results in these high-risk groups.”
The study authors and Dr. Chan report no relevant financial relationships.
, according to new research published online in BMJ Global Health.
Starting the contact, which involves mothers carrying the newborn in a sling, within 24 hours of birth and continuing it for at least 8 hours a day both appear to amplify the effect on reducing mortality and infection, the paper states.
Sindhu Sivanandan, MD, with the department of neonatology at Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India, and Mari Jeeva Sankar, MD, in the pediatrics department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, looked at existing studies to compare KMC with conventional care and to compare starting the intervention within 24 hours of birth versus a later start.
Their review looked at 31 trials that included 15,559 low-birthweight and preterm infants collectively. Of the 31 trials, 27 studies compared KMC with conventional care and four compared early with late initiation of KMC.
Mortality risk reduction
Analysis showed that, compared with conventional care, KMC appeared to cut mortality risk by 32% (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.86) during birth hospitalization or by 28 days after birth, while it seemed to reduce the risk of severe infection, such as sepsis, by 15% (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; low-certainty evidence.)
That mortality-risk reduction was found regardless of gestational age or weight of the child at enrolment, time of starting KMC, and whether the intervention was started in a hospital or community.
The studies that had compared early with late-initiated KMC showed a reduction in neonatal mortality of 33%.
Low- and middle-income countries have the highest rates of premature births (gestational age of less than 37 weeks) and low birthweight (less than 2,500 grams). Premature births and low birthweight both are key causes of death and disability.
The World Health Organization recommends KMC as the standard of care among low birthweight infants after clinical stabilization. The American Academy of Pediatrics also promotes immediate KMC.
Relevance in the U.S.
Grace Chan, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist and pediatrician with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said though the practice is promoted by the WHO and AAP, recommendations to families vary widely by providers.
She said the health benefits for KMC are numerous. One of the biggest is that skin-to-skin contact can help transfer heat to newborns who may have trouble regulating their own temperature. That is especially important in cold climates in places where there may be insufficient indoor heat.
She said it’s well-known that preterm babies are at higher risk for apnea, and listening to a mother’s heartbeat may stimulate the child to breathe regularly.
Additionally with KMC, there’s an inherent benefit of a mother or caregiver being able to see any change in a newborn’s color immediately when the baby is held so closely, as opposed to a nurse watching several babies at a time in a neonatal intensive care unit.
This is evidence that starting KMC right away is important, because the risk of death for premature and low-weight newborns is highest in the first 24 hours of life, Dr. Chan noted.
Barriers of time
There are some barriers, she noted, in that mothers or other caregivers caring for several young children may not have the time to carry a child in a sling for 8 or more hours at a time.
The authors conclude that their findings have policy implications, particularly for low- and middle-income countries: “KMC should be provided to all low birth weight and preterm infants irrespective of the settings – both health facilities and at home,” they wrote.
The authors caution that, “very low birth weight, extremely preterm neonates, and severely unstable neonates were often excluded from studies. More evidence is needed before extrapolating the study results in these high-risk groups.”
The study authors and Dr. Chan report no relevant financial relationships.
FROM BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH
