User login
For MD-IQ use only
Heavy drinking in your 20s has lasting impact on cancer risk
according to a new study from Australia.
Although alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, people generally do not expect their heavy drinking in early adulthood to affect their cancer risk many years later, lead author Harindra Jayasekara, MBBS, MD, PhD, with Cancer Council Victoria and University of Melbourne, said in an interview. But in this analysis, “we found evidence consistent with early initiation and chronic progression of carcinogenesis linked to alcohol and its toxic metabolites.”
The study, published online Feb. 19 in the International Journal of Cancer, assessed lifetime drinking trajectories and risk for alcohol-related cancer using data from 22,756 women and 15,701 men recruited to the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study from 1990-1994. Heavy drinking was considered an average alcohol intake of at least 60 g/day, which is equivalent to the alcohol content in 6 standard drinks.
During 485,525 person-years of follow-up among women, 2,303 incident alcohol-related cancers were diagnosed, most commonly breast (64%) and colorectal cancer (31%).
During 303,218 person-years of follow-up among men, 789 alcohol-related cancers were found, most commonly colorectal cancer (83%).
The researchers identified three distinct lifetime alcohol intake trajectories for women – lifetime abstainer (39%), stable light (54%), and increasing moderate (7%) – and six for men – lifetime abstainer (14.3%), stable light (51.5%), stable moderate (20.4%), increasing heavy (6.6%), early decreasing heavy (5.1%), and late decreasing heavy (2.2%).
Almost three times more, women were lifetime abstainers (39% vs. 14% of men). And approximately the same percentage of men and women increased their alcohol consumption over time. About 7% of men were classified as increasing heavy drinkers, consuming a moderate amount of alcohol (30-59 g/day) at age 20-39 and increasing their intake markedly from age 40-49 (over 60 g/day) before reducing it by age 60-69. Among women, 7% were classified as increasing moderate, tending to consume around 20 g/day at age 20-29 and gradually increasing their alcohol intake over time to consume close to 40 g/day at age 50-59.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy group started as heavy drinkers at age 20-39 (greater than or equal to 60 g/day) and continued to cut down their intake over time until developing stable light drinking habits by age 60-69, whereas late decreasing heavy drinks continued to drink a lot until age 60-69 before cutting their intake in their 70s.
Impact on cancer risk
For men, relative to lifetime abstention, heavy drinking trajectories were associated with an increased risk for alcohol-related cancer overall.
The strongest associations were for the early decreasing heavy trajectory (hazard ratio, 1.75) and the late decreasing heavy trajectory (HR, 1.94), with the increasing heavy trajectory not far behind (HR, 1.45).
The strength of these associations did not change appreciably in analyses excluding current smokers at baseline.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy and late decreasing heavy intake trajectories were similarly associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (HR, 1.56 for early, and HR, 1.74 for late). The corresponding HR for the increasing heavy trajectory was 1.36.
For women, compared with lifetime abstention, the alcohol intake trajectory classified as increasing moderate (30-59 g/day) was associated with a greater risk for alcohol-related cancer overall (HR, 1.25). The strength of this association weakened slightly when current smokers were excluded.
Compared with lifetime abstention, the increasing moderate trajectory in women was similarly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.30) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.23).
The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research global cancer prevention recommendation on alcohol is to “avoid any alcohol,” study investigator Julie Bassett, PhD, MSc, with Cancer Council Victoria, said in an interview. “As much as it is important to limit alcohol intake during middle age to prevent cancer, we have shown that limiting intake during early adulthood is also important.”
‘Striking’ findings
Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services at the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York, said it is “striking” that heavy drinking in early adulthood led to an increased risk for alcohol-related cancers, even among people who drank much less in middle age.
“We’ve known for decades that alcohol is not harmless, but this data adds to the growing body of literature regarding the significant dangers of heavy drinking during early adulthood,” said Dr. Brennan, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Dr. Brennan cautioned, however, that the authors studied alcohol-related cancers, and “there are likely many other [cancer] risk factors that were not analyzed in this dataset.”
Nevertheless, this evidence helps counter the “troubling narrative” that “it is somehow normal and safe to drink excessively in young adulthood.”
“It is most certainly not safe,” Dr. Brennan told this news organization . “We see in this study that drinking excessively in young adulthood can raise the risk of cancer much later in life.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Bassett, Dr. Jayasekara, and Dr. Brennan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new study from Australia.
Although alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, people generally do not expect their heavy drinking in early adulthood to affect their cancer risk many years later, lead author Harindra Jayasekara, MBBS, MD, PhD, with Cancer Council Victoria and University of Melbourne, said in an interview. But in this analysis, “we found evidence consistent with early initiation and chronic progression of carcinogenesis linked to alcohol and its toxic metabolites.”
The study, published online Feb. 19 in the International Journal of Cancer, assessed lifetime drinking trajectories and risk for alcohol-related cancer using data from 22,756 women and 15,701 men recruited to the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study from 1990-1994. Heavy drinking was considered an average alcohol intake of at least 60 g/day, which is equivalent to the alcohol content in 6 standard drinks.
During 485,525 person-years of follow-up among women, 2,303 incident alcohol-related cancers were diagnosed, most commonly breast (64%) and colorectal cancer (31%).
During 303,218 person-years of follow-up among men, 789 alcohol-related cancers were found, most commonly colorectal cancer (83%).
The researchers identified three distinct lifetime alcohol intake trajectories for women – lifetime abstainer (39%), stable light (54%), and increasing moderate (7%) – and six for men – lifetime abstainer (14.3%), stable light (51.5%), stable moderate (20.4%), increasing heavy (6.6%), early decreasing heavy (5.1%), and late decreasing heavy (2.2%).
Almost three times more, women were lifetime abstainers (39% vs. 14% of men). And approximately the same percentage of men and women increased their alcohol consumption over time. About 7% of men were classified as increasing heavy drinkers, consuming a moderate amount of alcohol (30-59 g/day) at age 20-39 and increasing their intake markedly from age 40-49 (over 60 g/day) before reducing it by age 60-69. Among women, 7% were classified as increasing moderate, tending to consume around 20 g/day at age 20-29 and gradually increasing their alcohol intake over time to consume close to 40 g/day at age 50-59.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy group started as heavy drinkers at age 20-39 (greater than or equal to 60 g/day) and continued to cut down their intake over time until developing stable light drinking habits by age 60-69, whereas late decreasing heavy drinks continued to drink a lot until age 60-69 before cutting their intake in their 70s.
Impact on cancer risk
For men, relative to lifetime abstention, heavy drinking trajectories were associated with an increased risk for alcohol-related cancer overall.
The strongest associations were for the early decreasing heavy trajectory (hazard ratio, 1.75) and the late decreasing heavy trajectory (HR, 1.94), with the increasing heavy trajectory not far behind (HR, 1.45).
The strength of these associations did not change appreciably in analyses excluding current smokers at baseline.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy and late decreasing heavy intake trajectories were similarly associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (HR, 1.56 for early, and HR, 1.74 for late). The corresponding HR for the increasing heavy trajectory was 1.36.
For women, compared with lifetime abstention, the alcohol intake trajectory classified as increasing moderate (30-59 g/day) was associated with a greater risk for alcohol-related cancer overall (HR, 1.25). The strength of this association weakened slightly when current smokers were excluded.
Compared with lifetime abstention, the increasing moderate trajectory in women was similarly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.30) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.23).
The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research global cancer prevention recommendation on alcohol is to “avoid any alcohol,” study investigator Julie Bassett, PhD, MSc, with Cancer Council Victoria, said in an interview. “As much as it is important to limit alcohol intake during middle age to prevent cancer, we have shown that limiting intake during early adulthood is also important.”
‘Striking’ findings
Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services at the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York, said it is “striking” that heavy drinking in early adulthood led to an increased risk for alcohol-related cancers, even among people who drank much less in middle age.
“We’ve known for decades that alcohol is not harmless, but this data adds to the growing body of literature regarding the significant dangers of heavy drinking during early adulthood,” said Dr. Brennan, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Dr. Brennan cautioned, however, that the authors studied alcohol-related cancers, and “there are likely many other [cancer] risk factors that were not analyzed in this dataset.”
Nevertheless, this evidence helps counter the “troubling narrative” that “it is somehow normal and safe to drink excessively in young adulthood.”
“It is most certainly not safe,” Dr. Brennan told this news organization . “We see in this study that drinking excessively in young adulthood can raise the risk of cancer much later in life.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Bassett, Dr. Jayasekara, and Dr. Brennan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new study from Australia.
Although alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, people generally do not expect their heavy drinking in early adulthood to affect their cancer risk many years later, lead author Harindra Jayasekara, MBBS, MD, PhD, with Cancer Council Victoria and University of Melbourne, said in an interview. But in this analysis, “we found evidence consistent with early initiation and chronic progression of carcinogenesis linked to alcohol and its toxic metabolites.”
The study, published online Feb. 19 in the International Journal of Cancer, assessed lifetime drinking trajectories and risk for alcohol-related cancer using data from 22,756 women and 15,701 men recruited to the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study from 1990-1994. Heavy drinking was considered an average alcohol intake of at least 60 g/day, which is equivalent to the alcohol content in 6 standard drinks.
During 485,525 person-years of follow-up among women, 2,303 incident alcohol-related cancers were diagnosed, most commonly breast (64%) and colorectal cancer (31%).
During 303,218 person-years of follow-up among men, 789 alcohol-related cancers were found, most commonly colorectal cancer (83%).
The researchers identified three distinct lifetime alcohol intake trajectories for women – lifetime abstainer (39%), stable light (54%), and increasing moderate (7%) – and six for men – lifetime abstainer (14.3%), stable light (51.5%), stable moderate (20.4%), increasing heavy (6.6%), early decreasing heavy (5.1%), and late decreasing heavy (2.2%).
Almost three times more, women were lifetime abstainers (39% vs. 14% of men). And approximately the same percentage of men and women increased their alcohol consumption over time. About 7% of men were classified as increasing heavy drinkers, consuming a moderate amount of alcohol (30-59 g/day) at age 20-39 and increasing their intake markedly from age 40-49 (over 60 g/day) before reducing it by age 60-69. Among women, 7% were classified as increasing moderate, tending to consume around 20 g/day at age 20-29 and gradually increasing their alcohol intake over time to consume close to 40 g/day at age 50-59.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy group started as heavy drinkers at age 20-39 (greater than or equal to 60 g/day) and continued to cut down their intake over time until developing stable light drinking habits by age 60-69, whereas late decreasing heavy drinks continued to drink a lot until age 60-69 before cutting their intake in their 70s.
Impact on cancer risk
For men, relative to lifetime abstention, heavy drinking trajectories were associated with an increased risk for alcohol-related cancer overall.
The strongest associations were for the early decreasing heavy trajectory (hazard ratio, 1.75) and the late decreasing heavy trajectory (HR, 1.94), with the increasing heavy trajectory not far behind (HR, 1.45).
The strength of these associations did not change appreciably in analyses excluding current smokers at baseline.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy and late decreasing heavy intake trajectories were similarly associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (HR, 1.56 for early, and HR, 1.74 for late). The corresponding HR for the increasing heavy trajectory was 1.36.
For women, compared with lifetime abstention, the alcohol intake trajectory classified as increasing moderate (30-59 g/day) was associated with a greater risk for alcohol-related cancer overall (HR, 1.25). The strength of this association weakened slightly when current smokers were excluded.
Compared with lifetime abstention, the increasing moderate trajectory in women was similarly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.30) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.23).
The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research global cancer prevention recommendation on alcohol is to “avoid any alcohol,” study investigator Julie Bassett, PhD, MSc, with Cancer Council Victoria, said in an interview. “As much as it is important to limit alcohol intake during middle age to prevent cancer, we have shown that limiting intake during early adulthood is also important.”
‘Striking’ findings
Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services at the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York, said it is “striking” that heavy drinking in early adulthood led to an increased risk for alcohol-related cancers, even among people who drank much less in middle age.
“We’ve known for decades that alcohol is not harmless, but this data adds to the growing body of literature regarding the significant dangers of heavy drinking during early adulthood,” said Dr. Brennan, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Dr. Brennan cautioned, however, that the authors studied alcohol-related cancers, and “there are likely many other [cancer] risk factors that were not analyzed in this dataset.”
Nevertheless, this evidence helps counter the “troubling narrative” that “it is somehow normal and safe to drink excessively in young adulthood.”
“It is most certainly not safe,” Dr. Brennan told this news organization . “We see in this study that drinking excessively in young adulthood can raise the risk of cancer much later in life.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Bassett, Dr. Jayasekara, and Dr. Brennan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Half of U.S. adults exposed to harmful lead levels as children: Study
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.
“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.
“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.
The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.
The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.
They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.
They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.
The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.
At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.
“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.
Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.
“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.
Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.
“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.
“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.
“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.
The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.
The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.
They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.
They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.
The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.
At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.
“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.
Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.
“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.
Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.
“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.
“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.
“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.
The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.
The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.
They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.
They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.
The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.
At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.
“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.
Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.
“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.
Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.
“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Raise a glass to speed up the brain’s aging process
Drink a day could age your brain
There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.
According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.
Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!
The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.
Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?
Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
A big dose of meta-cine
The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.
That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.
Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.
Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
Please don’t eat the winner
Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.
Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?
Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?
Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.
Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?
In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”
Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!
Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
Turning back the egg timer
The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.
It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.
If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.
The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.
“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”
We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!
Drink a day could age your brain
There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.
According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.
Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!
The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.
Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?
Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
A big dose of meta-cine
The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.
That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.
Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.
Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
Please don’t eat the winner
Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.
Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?
Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?
Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.
Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?
In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”
Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!
Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
Turning back the egg timer
The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.
It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.
If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.
The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.
“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”
We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!
Drink a day could age your brain
There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.
According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.
Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!
The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.
Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?
Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
A big dose of meta-cine
The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.
That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.
Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.
Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
Please don’t eat the winner
Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.
Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?
Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?
Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.
Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?
In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”
Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!
Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
Turning back the egg timer
The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.
It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.
If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.
The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.
“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”
We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!
New carcinogens added to toxicology list
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.)
In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.)
In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.)
In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ESC suspension of Russia, Belarus societies sparks controversy
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Complex link between gut microbiome and immunotherapy response in advanced melanoma
A large-scale than previously thought.
Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.
This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”
The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.
Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.
Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.
To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.
First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).
The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.
However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.
Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.
“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”
Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”
In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”
This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large-scale than previously thought.
Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.
This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”
The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.
Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.
Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.
To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.
First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).
The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.
However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.
Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.
“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”
Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”
In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”
This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large-scale than previously thought.
Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.
This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”
The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.
Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.
Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.
To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.
First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).
The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.
However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.
Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.
“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”
Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”
In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”
This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oncology groups support Ukraine, one cuts ties with Russian docs
As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.
All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.
“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”
“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”
Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.
A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”
Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”
“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.
Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.
One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”
Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”
And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
Cancer patients vulnerable
The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.
One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling.
“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.
For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.
“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
Response from oncology community
Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.
The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.
The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned.
The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”
“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.
ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”
The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.
“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.
The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”
“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”
Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”
ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.
All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.
“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”
“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”
Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.
A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”
Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”
“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.
Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.
One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”
Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”
And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
Cancer patients vulnerable
The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.
One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling.
“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.
For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.
“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
Response from oncology community
Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.
The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.
The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned.
The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”
“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.
ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”
The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.
“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.
The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”
“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”
Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”
ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.
All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.
“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”
“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”
Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.
A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”
Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”
“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.
Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.
One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”
Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”
And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
Cancer patients vulnerable
The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.
One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling.
“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.
For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.
“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
Response from oncology community
Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.
The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.
The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned.
The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”
“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.
ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”
The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.
“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.
The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”
“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”
Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”
ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Infectious disease pop quiz: Clinical challenge #17 for the ObGyn
What are the best tests for identification of a patient with chronic hepatitis B infection?
Continue to the answer...
Patients with chronic hepatitis B infection typically test positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and for IgG antibody to the hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg). In addition, they also may test positive for the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), and their viral load can be quantified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) when significant antigenemia is present. The presence of the e antigen indicates a high rate of viral replication and a corresponding high rate of infectivity.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
What are the best tests for identification of a patient with chronic hepatitis B infection?
Continue to the answer...
Patients with chronic hepatitis B infection typically test positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and for IgG antibody to the hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg). In addition, they also may test positive for the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), and their viral load can be quantified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) when significant antigenemia is present. The presence of the e antigen indicates a high rate of viral replication and a corresponding high rate of infectivity.
What are the best tests for identification of a patient with chronic hepatitis B infection?
Continue to the answer...
Patients with chronic hepatitis B infection typically test positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and for IgG antibody to the hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg). In addition, they also may test positive for the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), and their viral load can be quantified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) when significant antigenemia is present. The presence of the e antigen indicates a high rate of viral replication and a corresponding high rate of infectivity.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Antivaccine physician pleads guilty to role in Capitol riot
California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.
Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.
Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.
The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.
In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.
In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”
Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”
Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”
Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.
Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.
Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.
Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.
The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.
In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.
In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”
Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”
Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”
Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.
Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.
Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.
Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.
The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.
In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.
In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”
Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”
Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”
Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.
Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Former physician sentenced to 20 years in pill mill case
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.