Cardiology News

For many, stretching is the fitness equivalent of awkward small talk. It’s the opening act, the thing you tolerate because you know it will be over soon. 

Others have challenged the practice, suggesting that stretching isn’t necessary at all. Some research has found that a preworkout stretch may even be disadvantageous, weakening muscles and hindering performance.

To put it plainly, no one seems terribly enthusiastic about touching their toes. 

That’s why a 2020 study on exercise and mortality was such a head-scratcher. The study found that stretching was uniquely associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among American adults. That’s after controlling for participation in other types of exercise. 

The finding seemed like a fluke, until a 2023 study found essentially the same thing. 

Among Korean adults, those who did flexibility exercise at least five times a week had a 20% lower risk of dying during the follow-up period than those who didn’t stretch at all. That was slightly better than the risk reduction associated with high volumes of aerobic exercise and resistance training. 

How can that be ? It turns out, stretching is linked to several health benefits that you might not expect.
 

The Surprising Benefits of Stretching

When we talk about stretching, we usually mean static stretching — getting into and holding a position that challenges a muscle, with the goal of improving range of motion around a joint. 

It doesn’t need to be a big challenge. “Research shows you can get increases in flexibility by stretching to the initial point of discomfort,” said David Behm, PhD, an exercise scientist at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada who’s published dozens of studies on stretching over the past quarter-century. 

That brings us to the first benefit.
 

Stretching Benefit #1: More Strength

At first glance, flexibility training and strength training have little in common. You lengthen muscles in the former and contract them in the latter. 

But in both cases, Dr. Behm said, you’re applying tension to muscles and connective tissues. Tension activates proteins called integrins, which send and receive signals across cellular membranes. Those signals are the start of a cascade that leads to protein synthesis. That’s how muscles get bigger and stronger when you lift weights. 

That mechanism could explain the small gains in muscle strength and size associated with static stretching, Dr. Behm said. 

But can you really stretch your way to muscle growth? Theoretically, yes. But strength training is far more time-efficient, Dr. Behm says. Studies showing increases in muscle mass have typically stretched a single muscle (usually the calves, using a specialized device) for > 30 min/session, 6 d/wk for 6 weeks. And that’s for just one leg.

Still, stretching may be more accessible for some patients — research suggested that older and more sedentary people are most likely to benefit from stretching-induced gains in strength.

 

Stretching Benefit #2: Reduced Arterial Stiffness

“Most people don’t think about the cardiovascular benefits of stretching,” Dr. Behm said. There are some big ones. 

If your body doesn’t move well, it’s not unreasonable to assume your blood doesn’t flow well. That is indeed the case: Poor flexibility is associated with arterial stiffness. 

Stretching is associated not only with improved arterial function but also with reductions in resting heart rate and blood pressure and increased vasodilation.

Mobility improvements may have an indirect benefit on cardiovascular health as well. 

“Studies show runners are more economical when they’re more flexible,” Dr. Behm said. If your movement is more efficient, you’ll probably do more of it. Doing more, in turn, would lead to improved fitness. 
 

Stretching Benefit #3: Improved Performance

Research is equivocal on whether stretching improves athletic performance, said Joe Yoon, a sports massage therapist in Orlando, Florida, and author of Better Stretching. 

“But I’ve always taken the approach that if you can improve your range of motion and get into positions” required for your sport, you’ll probably perform better, with less risk for injury, Mr. Yoon said. 

It’s worth noting that some research over the past 30 years has linked pre-exercise static stretching with a loss of strength, power, and/or speed. 

But consider this: In a 2016 review, Dr. Behm and his coauthors showed that performance reductions were most likely to occur in two situations: 

When participants did extremely long stretches (duration, ≥ 60 sec per muscle).

When researchers tested the participants’ strength, power, or speed immediately after they stretched.

Avoiding those problems is easy, Dr. Behm said: Stretch each muscle for < 60 sec, and combine static stretches with more active warm-up exercises. 

“Stretching can impair your performance but only if you do it wrong,” he said.
 

Stretching Benefit #4: Fewer Injuries

When you stretch, the point where you feel tension is where the muscle is most vulnerable. “That’s where injuries usually happen,” Dr. Behm said. 

More flexibility in those areas allows your muscles to safely generate force at longer lengths. For an athlete, that means fewer injuries when they’re doing explosive movements or changing direction. 

For nonathletes, flexibility reduces injuries by improving balance. Better balance reduces the risk of falling and helps mitigate the damage if you do take a tumble.
 

Help Your Patients Get the Benefits of Stretching

Stretching, like training for endurance or strength, can be as complex as you want to make it. But Mr. Yoon advocates a simpler approach. 

“You see this flashy stuff online,” he said. “But if you see those trainers in real life or you book a session with them, they go right back to the basics.” 

Ideally, Mr. Yoon said, a flexibility routine will work the entire body. But if that’s too big a stretch for your patient, he recommends starting with one or two stretches for the most problematic area. 

For example, for a stiff back, try doing the puppy pose at least once a day, although twice is better. Hold the position for 30 seconds to 2 minutes, said Mr. Yoon. Even if you combine it with a dynamic movement like the cat-cow, the two exercises would take just a few minutes a day. 

“There’s this misconception that you have to do a lot of it to be successful,” Mr. Yoon said. 

Consistency is far more important than volume. Mr. Yoon recommends “a little bit every day — the minimum viable dose.” 

As a bonus, stretching an area like your upper back will probably improve your shoulder mobility, Mr. Yoon said. Same with your lower body: Stretches for your hips, over time, should also benefit your knees and lower back. 

And thanks to a phenomenon called nonlocal flexibility transfer, lower-body stretches should improve upper-body flexibility, at least temporarily. Shoulder stretches can also have an immediate effect on hip mobility. 

“It’s all connected,” Mr. Yoon said, which brings us back to where we started. 

If stretching can indeed reduce mortality risk, it’s probably because of interconnected pathways, rather than any single mechanism. 

Most obviously, stretching improves flexibility, which makes movement easier, improves balance, and reduces the risk for falls and other types of injuries. It can also lead to small improvements in strength. Less obviously, stretching improves several aspects of cardiovascular function, including circulation. 

“There seems to be a global effect in everything we do,” Dr. Behm said. “Whether you’re stretching or weight training, the message is sent throughout your body."

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For many, stretching is the fitness equivalent of awkward small talk. It’s the opening act, the thing you tolerate because you know it will be over soon. 

Others have challenged the practice, suggesting that stretching isn’t necessary at all. Some research has found that a preworkout stretch may even be disadvantageous, weakening muscles and hindering performance.

To put it plainly, no one seems terribly enthusiastic about touching their toes. 

That’s why a 2020 study on exercise and mortality was such a head-scratcher. The study found that stretching was uniquely associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among American adults. That’s after controlling for participation in other types of exercise. 

The finding seemed like a fluke, until a 2023 study found essentially the same thing. 

Among Korean adults, those who did flexibility exercise at least five times a week had a 20% lower risk of dying during the follow-up period than those who didn’t stretch at all. That was slightly better than the risk reduction associated with high volumes of aerobic exercise and resistance training. 

How can that be ? It turns out, stretching is linked to several health benefits that you might not expect.
 

The Surprising Benefits of Stretching

When we talk about stretching, we usually mean static stretching — getting into and holding a position that challenges a muscle, with the goal of improving range of motion around a joint. 

It doesn’t need to be a big challenge. “Research shows you can get increases in flexibility by stretching to the initial point of discomfort,” said David Behm, PhD, an exercise scientist at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada who’s published dozens of studies on stretching over the past quarter-century. 

That brings us to the first benefit.
 

Stretching Benefit #1: More Strength

At first glance, flexibility training and strength training have little in common. You lengthen muscles in the former and contract them in the latter. 

But in both cases, Dr. Behm said, you’re applying tension to muscles and connective tissues. Tension activates proteins called integrins, which send and receive signals across cellular membranes. Those signals are the start of a cascade that leads to protein synthesis. That’s how muscles get bigger and stronger when you lift weights. 

That mechanism could explain the small gains in muscle strength and size associated with static stretching, Dr. Behm said. 

But can you really stretch your way to muscle growth? Theoretically, yes. But strength training is far more time-efficient, Dr. Behm says. Studies showing increases in muscle mass have typically stretched a single muscle (usually the calves, using a specialized device) for > 30 min/session, 6 d/wk for 6 weeks. And that’s for just one leg.

Still, stretching may be more accessible for some patients — research suggested that older and more sedentary people are most likely to benefit from stretching-induced gains in strength.

 

Stretching Benefit #2: Reduced Arterial Stiffness

“Most people don’t think about the cardiovascular benefits of stretching,” Dr. Behm said. There are some big ones. 

If your body doesn’t move well, it’s not unreasonable to assume your blood doesn’t flow well. That is indeed the case: Poor flexibility is associated with arterial stiffness. 

Stretching is associated not only with improved arterial function but also with reductions in resting heart rate and blood pressure and increased vasodilation.

Mobility improvements may have an indirect benefit on cardiovascular health as well. 

“Studies show runners are more economical when they’re more flexible,” Dr. Behm said. If your movement is more efficient, you’ll probably do more of it. Doing more, in turn, would lead to improved fitness. 
 

Stretching Benefit #3: Improved Performance

Research is equivocal on whether stretching improves athletic performance, said Joe Yoon, a sports massage therapist in Orlando, Florida, and author of Better Stretching. 

“But I’ve always taken the approach that if you can improve your range of motion and get into positions” required for your sport, you’ll probably perform better, with less risk for injury, Mr. Yoon said. 

It’s worth noting that some research over the past 30 years has linked pre-exercise static stretching with a loss of strength, power, and/or speed. 

But consider this: In a 2016 review, Dr. Behm and his coauthors showed that performance reductions were most likely to occur in two situations: 

When participants did extremely long stretches (duration, ≥ 60 sec per muscle).

When researchers tested the participants’ strength, power, or speed immediately after they stretched.

Avoiding those problems is easy, Dr. Behm said: Stretch each muscle for < 60 sec, and combine static stretches with more active warm-up exercises. 

“Stretching can impair your performance but only if you do it wrong,” he said.
 

Stretching Benefit #4: Fewer Injuries

When you stretch, the point where you feel tension is where the muscle is most vulnerable. “That’s where injuries usually happen,” Dr. Behm said. 

More flexibility in those areas allows your muscles to safely generate force at longer lengths. For an athlete, that means fewer injuries when they’re doing explosive movements or changing direction. 

For nonathletes, flexibility reduces injuries by improving balance. Better balance reduces the risk of falling and helps mitigate the damage if you do take a tumble.
 

Help Your Patients Get the Benefits of Stretching

Stretching, like training for endurance or strength, can be as complex as you want to make it. But Mr. Yoon advocates a simpler approach. 

“You see this flashy stuff online,” he said. “But if you see those trainers in real life or you book a session with them, they go right back to the basics.” 

Ideally, Mr. Yoon said, a flexibility routine will work the entire body. But if that’s too big a stretch for your patient, he recommends starting with one or two stretches for the most problematic area. 

For example, for a stiff back, try doing the puppy pose at least once a day, although twice is better. Hold the position for 30 seconds to 2 minutes, said Mr. Yoon. Even if you combine it with a dynamic movement like the cat-cow, the two exercises would take just a few minutes a day. 

“There’s this misconception that you have to do a lot of it to be successful,” Mr. Yoon said. 

Consistency is far more important than volume. Mr. Yoon recommends “a little bit every day — the minimum viable dose.” 

As a bonus, stretching an area like your upper back will probably improve your shoulder mobility, Mr. Yoon said. Same with your lower body: Stretches for your hips, over time, should also benefit your knees and lower back. 

And thanks to a phenomenon called nonlocal flexibility transfer, lower-body stretches should improve upper-body flexibility, at least temporarily. Shoulder stretches can also have an immediate effect on hip mobility. 

“It’s all connected,” Mr. Yoon said, which brings us back to where we started. 

If stretching can indeed reduce mortality risk, it’s probably because of interconnected pathways, rather than any single mechanism. 

Most obviously, stretching improves flexibility, which makes movement easier, improves balance, and reduces the risk for falls and other types of injuries. It can also lead to small improvements in strength. Less obviously, stretching improves several aspects of cardiovascular function, including circulation. 

“There seems to be a global effect in everything we do,” Dr. Behm said. “Whether you’re stretching or weight training, the message is sent throughout your body."

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For many, stretching is the fitness equivalent of awkward small talk. It’s the opening act, the thing you tolerate because you know it will be over soon. 

Others have challenged the practice, suggesting that stretching isn’t necessary at all. Some research has found that a preworkout stretch may even be disadvantageous, weakening muscles and hindering performance.

To put it plainly, no one seems terribly enthusiastic about touching their toes. 

That’s why a 2020 study on exercise and mortality was such a head-scratcher. The study found that stretching was uniquely associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among American adults. That’s after controlling for participation in other types of exercise. 

The finding seemed like a fluke, until a 2023 study found essentially the same thing. 

Among Korean adults, those who did flexibility exercise at least five times a week had a 20% lower risk of dying during the follow-up period than those who didn’t stretch at all. That was slightly better than the risk reduction associated with high volumes of aerobic exercise and resistance training. 

How can that be ? It turns out, stretching is linked to several health benefits that you might not expect.
 

The Surprising Benefits of Stretching

When we talk about stretching, we usually mean static stretching — getting into and holding a position that challenges a muscle, with the goal of improving range of motion around a joint. 

It doesn’t need to be a big challenge. “Research shows you can get increases in flexibility by stretching to the initial point of discomfort,” said David Behm, PhD, an exercise scientist at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada who’s published dozens of studies on stretching over the past quarter-century. 

That brings us to the first benefit.
 

Stretching Benefit #1: More Strength

At first glance, flexibility training and strength training have little in common. You lengthen muscles in the former and contract them in the latter. 

But in both cases, Dr. Behm said, you’re applying tension to muscles and connective tissues. Tension activates proteins called integrins, which send and receive signals across cellular membranes. Those signals are the start of a cascade that leads to protein synthesis. That’s how muscles get bigger and stronger when you lift weights. 

That mechanism could explain the small gains in muscle strength and size associated with static stretching, Dr. Behm said. 

But can you really stretch your way to muscle growth? Theoretically, yes. But strength training is far more time-efficient, Dr. Behm says. Studies showing increases in muscle mass have typically stretched a single muscle (usually the calves, using a specialized device) for > 30 min/session, 6 d/wk for 6 weeks. And that’s for just one leg.

Still, stretching may be more accessible for some patients — research suggested that older and more sedentary people are most likely to benefit from stretching-induced gains in strength.

 

Stretching Benefit #2: Reduced Arterial Stiffness

“Most people don’t think about the cardiovascular benefits of stretching,” Dr. Behm said. There are some big ones. 

If your body doesn’t move well, it’s not unreasonable to assume your blood doesn’t flow well. That is indeed the case: Poor flexibility is associated with arterial stiffness. 

Stretching is associated not only with improved arterial function but also with reductions in resting heart rate and blood pressure and increased vasodilation.

Mobility improvements may have an indirect benefit on cardiovascular health as well. 

“Studies show runners are more economical when they’re more flexible,” Dr. Behm said. If your movement is more efficient, you’ll probably do more of it. Doing more, in turn, would lead to improved fitness. 
 

Stretching Benefit #3: Improved Performance

Research is equivocal on whether stretching improves athletic performance, said Joe Yoon, a sports massage therapist in Orlando, Florida, and author of Better Stretching. 

“But I’ve always taken the approach that if you can improve your range of motion and get into positions” required for your sport, you’ll probably perform better, with less risk for injury, Mr. Yoon said. 

It’s worth noting that some research over the past 30 years has linked pre-exercise static stretching with a loss of strength, power, and/or speed. 

But consider this: In a 2016 review, Dr. Behm and his coauthors showed that performance reductions were most likely to occur in two situations: 

When participants did extremely long stretches (duration, ≥ 60 sec per muscle).

When researchers tested the participants’ strength, power, or speed immediately after they stretched.

Avoiding those problems is easy, Dr. Behm said: Stretch each muscle for < 60 sec, and combine static stretches with more active warm-up exercises. 

“Stretching can impair your performance but only if you do it wrong,” he said.
 

Stretching Benefit #4: Fewer Injuries

When you stretch, the point where you feel tension is where the muscle is most vulnerable. “That’s where injuries usually happen,” Dr. Behm said. 

More flexibility in those areas allows your muscles to safely generate force at longer lengths. For an athlete, that means fewer injuries when they’re doing explosive movements or changing direction. 

For nonathletes, flexibility reduces injuries by improving balance. Better balance reduces the risk of falling and helps mitigate the damage if you do take a tumble.
 

Help Your Patients Get the Benefits of Stretching

Stretching, like training for endurance or strength, can be as complex as you want to make it. But Mr. Yoon advocates a simpler approach. 

“You see this flashy stuff online,” he said. “But if you see those trainers in real life or you book a session with them, they go right back to the basics.” 

Ideally, Mr. Yoon said, a flexibility routine will work the entire body. But if that’s too big a stretch for your patient, he recommends starting with one or two stretches for the most problematic area. 

For example, for a stiff back, try doing the puppy pose at least once a day, although twice is better. Hold the position for 30 seconds to 2 minutes, said Mr. Yoon. Even if you combine it with a dynamic movement like the cat-cow, the two exercises would take just a few minutes a day. 

“There’s this misconception that you have to do a lot of it to be successful,” Mr. Yoon said. 

Consistency is far more important than volume. Mr. Yoon recommends “a little bit every day — the minimum viable dose.” 

As a bonus, stretching an area like your upper back will probably improve your shoulder mobility, Mr. Yoon said. Same with your lower body: Stretches for your hips, over time, should also benefit your knees and lower back. 

And thanks to a phenomenon called nonlocal flexibility transfer, lower-body stretches should improve upper-body flexibility, at least temporarily. Shoulder stretches can also have an immediate effect on hip mobility. 

“It’s all connected,” Mr. Yoon said, which brings us back to where we started. 

If stretching can indeed reduce mortality risk, it’s probably because of interconnected pathways, rather than any single mechanism. 

Most obviously, stretching improves flexibility, which makes movement easier, improves balance, and reduces the risk for falls and other types of injuries. It can also lead to small improvements in strength. Less obviously, stretching improves several aspects of cardiovascular function, including circulation. 

“There seems to be a global effect in everything we do,” Dr. Behm said. “Whether you’re stretching or weight training, the message is sent throughout your body."

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Calling the matter “a danger the public should not be forced to shoulder,” a federal judge has rejected a plea to temporarily restore the scores of 832 medical graduates from Nepal who are suspected of cheating on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). 

In a February 23 order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, denied Latika Giri’s emergency motion to block the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) from invalidating the scores, ruling the public interest plainly weighs against granting the request. 

“First and foremost, is the overriding interest in public safety,” Cooper wrote in his 32-page order. “This is a case about the credentials of doctors applying to medical residency programs…Granting the preliminary injunction would create an unacceptable risk that individuals who lack the requisite knowledge and skills they purport to possess because they achieved their exam scores fraudulently will be administering medical care to unsuspecting patients across the nation.”

Attorneys for Giri did not return messages seeking comment about the order. 

The NBME also did not return messages seeking comment. The board previously said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The decision is the latest development in a widespread cheating scandal. Giri, an international medical graduate (IMG) from Kathmandu, sued NBME earlier this month claiming the board discriminated against Nepali medical graduates when it invalidated hundreds of exam scores linked to the country. 

Giri also accused NBME of violating its own procedures when it voided the scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal. She asked the district court to block NBME from invalidating her exam scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. 

In court documents, NBME argued that it did not invalidate the scores because the examinees were Nepali but because staff concluded that there was “a good faith basis for questioning the validity of the scores.” 

The invalidations were based on concerns that the results reflected prior access to secure exam content rather than knowledge and understanding of the medical principles and skills the exams are intended to assess, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

“The USMLE program took reasonable and appropriate actions to prevent the significant harm and disruption that would result from allowing potentially unqualified individuals to participate in the 2024 residency Match,” the NBME stated in court documents. “If granted, the requested injunction would cause enormous harm not only to NBME… but also to state licensing authorities, which rely upon USMLE results to help ensure that physicians have the minimum competencies needed to provide safe and effective health care.”

In his order, Cooper wrote that Giri has not proven the board’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors. 

“Nothing in the present record suggests that NBME went looking for a problem in Nepal out of ethnicity-or national-origin based [sic] suspicion,” Cooper wrote. “[It] followed the trail of evidence, including tips about organized cheating taking place in medical schools and at a testing center located in Nepal, and on an online forum for which a ‘nexus to Nepal’ was a ticket to admission.”

NBME: Nepal Outperformed All Other Countries on USMLE 

Court documents shed more light on NBME’s investigation into the suspected cheating and on the anomalous patterns the board allegedly discovered from Nepal medical graduates. 

In response to anonymous tips, the USMLE program in early 2023 asked the NBME Psychometrics and Data Analysis (PADA) unit to analyze examinee performance data for test centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan, according to court records. Within the initial data analysis, the data involving the single test center in Nepal was “the most extreme,” the unit found. 

Out of more than 400 test centers across the world, including those in the United States, the test center in Nepal produced the highest test scores in the world for Step 1 in 2021 and 2022 and the highest test scores in the world for Step 2 CK in 2022, according to court documents. For the 2022 Step 1 exam for example, the average score of examinees testing in the Nepal test center was 240. No other test center in the world had an average examinee score above 227, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

The median item response time for examinees who tested at the Nepal test center in 2022 was also among the fastest of all international test centers for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, investigators found. 

In addition, the volume of examinees taking the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK at the Nepal test center in Nepal had sharply increased. Step 1 volume more than doubled in the Nepal test center from 281 examinees in 2019 to 662 examinees in 2022, according to court documents. 

The rapid increase continued in 2023, when examinee volume was nearly three-and-a-half times higher than the 2019 volume. The data were consistent with anonymous tips received by the USMLE program office, suggesting there may be wide-scale collection and sharing of live USMLE exam content within Nepal. 

Investigation Finds Similar Correct and Incorrect Answers 

Agreement similarity among the exams analyzed also raised red flags. Investigators ran an “agreement analysis” for all examinees who tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan as well as two centers in India, according to court documents. 

For the 2022 Step 1 exam and the 2021 and 2022 Step 2 CK exam, the analysis showed a substantially higher percentage of examinees with a statistically significant level of agreement matches in the examine group that tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, and India compared with the baseline group, according to legal records. 

The vast majority of examinees with a statistically significant number of matching incorrect answers tested at the Nepal test center, data showed. 

Further analysis found that examinee volumes increased considerably at the Nepal test center in the months prior to the USMLE program releasing new test items, “suggesting that candidates who had prior access to disclosed exam questions wanted to test before new questions came into the item pool.”

Investigators also identified posts on social medial and in online chat rooms suggesting groups were collecting and sharing large amounts of secure exam material in private groups. Some posts advised examinees to use the full examination time when taking the USMLE “to avoid raising suspicion about having had prior access to secure exam materials,” according to court documents. 

From its investigation and analysis, the USMLE program identified 832 examinees who had passing level exam results whose validity the USMLE program had a significant and good faith basis for questioning, according to court records. 

Of the total, 618 examinees had one Step score flagged as being of questioned validity, 202 examinees had two Step exam scores flagged, and 12 examinees had scores flagged on all three Step exams. 

NBME Defends Departure From Traditional Procedures

In court documents, NBME disputed claims that it violated its own procedures by invalidating the exam scores. Giri’s report contends that examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal — during which time, their scores are treated as valid. 

But the NBME said the USMLE program is authorized to take any actions it deems appropriate in response to concerns regarding score validity if the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review or the USMLE Composite Committee concludes that alternative or supplemental procedures are warranted in response to a given set of facts or circumstances. 

“Following the month-long investigation and analysis…the USMLE program concluded that alternative procedures were warranted to address the score invalidity concerns identified in the interest of providing a process that is timely, efficient, effective, and fair, and given the large number of examinees involved in the investigation,” the board stated in its legal response. 

In his order, Cooper wrote the current scenario, which implicates that more than 800 test-takers, is “clearly a situation calling for a procedure geared toward efficiency.” No evidence shows the board would not have taken similarly swift action if confronted with evidence of cheating on a comparable scale elsewhere, he wrote. 

The judge also denied Giri’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff has the option to renew the motion should the case proceed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Calling the matter “a danger the public should not be forced to shoulder,” a federal judge has rejected a plea to temporarily restore the scores of 832 medical graduates from Nepal who are suspected of cheating on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). 

In a February 23 order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, denied Latika Giri’s emergency motion to block the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) from invalidating the scores, ruling the public interest plainly weighs against granting the request. 

“First and foremost, is the overriding interest in public safety,” Cooper wrote in his 32-page order. “This is a case about the credentials of doctors applying to medical residency programs…Granting the preliminary injunction would create an unacceptable risk that individuals who lack the requisite knowledge and skills they purport to possess because they achieved their exam scores fraudulently will be administering medical care to unsuspecting patients across the nation.”

Attorneys for Giri did not return messages seeking comment about the order. 

The NBME also did not return messages seeking comment. The board previously said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The decision is the latest development in a widespread cheating scandal. Giri, an international medical graduate (IMG) from Kathmandu, sued NBME earlier this month claiming the board discriminated against Nepali medical graduates when it invalidated hundreds of exam scores linked to the country. 

Giri also accused NBME of violating its own procedures when it voided the scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal. She asked the district court to block NBME from invalidating her exam scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. 

In court documents, NBME argued that it did not invalidate the scores because the examinees were Nepali but because staff concluded that there was “a good faith basis for questioning the validity of the scores.” 

The invalidations were based on concerns that the results reflected prior access to secure exam content rather than knowledge and understanding of the medical principles and skills the exams are intended to assess, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

“The USMLE program took reasonable and appropriate actions to prevent the significant harm and disruption that would result from allowing potentially unqualified individuals to participate in the 2024 residency Match,” the NBME stated in court documents. “If granted, the requested injunction would cause enormous harm not only to NBME… but also to state licensing authorities, which rely upon USMLE results to help ensure that physicians have the minimum competencies needed to provide safe and effective health care.”

In his order, Cooper wrote that Giri has not proven the board’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors. 

“Nothing in the present record suggests that NBME went looking for a problem in Nepal out of ethnicity-or national-origin based [sic] suspicion,” Cooper wrote. “[It] followed the trail of evidence, including tips about organized cheating taking place in medical schools and at a testing center located in Nepal, and on an online forum for which a ‘nexus to Nepal’ was a ticket to admission.”

NBME: Nepal Outperformed All Other Countries on USMLE 

Court documents shed more light on NBME’s investigation into the suspected cheating and on the anomalous patterns the board allegedly discovered from Nepal medical graduates. 

In response to anonymous tips, the USMLE program in early 2023 asked the NBME Psychometrics and Data Analysis (PADA) unit to analyze examinee performance data for test centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan, according to court records. Within the initial data analysis, the data involving the single test center in Nepal was “the most extreme,” the unit found. 

Out of more than 400 test centers across the world, including those in the United States, the test center in Nepal produced the highest test scores in the world for Step 1 in 2021 and 2022 and the highest test scores in the world for Step 2 CK in 2022, according to court documents. For the 2022 Step 1 exam for example, the average score of examinees testing in the Nepal test center was 240. No other test center in the world had an average examinee score above 227, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

The median item response time for examinees who tested at the Nepal test center in 2022 was also among the fastest of all international test centers for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, investigators found. 

In addition, the volume of examinees taking the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK at the Nepal test center in Nepal had sharply increased. Step 1 volume more than doubled in the Nepal test center from 281 examinees in 2019 to 662 examinees in 2022, according to court documents. 

The rapid increase continued in 2023, when examinee volume was nearly three-and-a-half times higher than the 2019 volume. The data were consistent with anonymous tips received by the USMLE program office, suggesting there may be wide-scale collection and sharing of live USMLE exam content within Nepal. 

Investigation Finds Similar Correct and Incorrect Answers 

Agreement similarity among the exams analyzed also raised red flags. Investigators ran an “agreement analysis” for all examinees who tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan as well as two centers in India, according to court documents. 

For the 2022 Step 1 exam and the 2021 and 2022 Step 2 CK exam, the analysis showed a substantially higher percentage of examinees with a statistically significant level of agreement matches in the examine group that tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, and India compared with the baseline group, according to legal records. 

The vast majority of examinees with a statistically significant number of matching incorrect answers tested at the Nepal test center, data showed. 

Further analysis found that examinee volumes increased considerably at the Nepal test center in the months prior to the USMLE program releasing new test items, “suggesting that candidates who had prior access to disclosed exam questions wanted to test before new questions came into the item pool.”

Investigators also identified posts on social medial and in online chat rooms suggesting groups were collecting and sharing large amounts of secure exam material in private groups. Some posts advised examinees to use the full examination time when taking the USMLE “to avoid raising suspicion about having had prior access to secure exam materials,” according to court documents. 

From its investigation and analysis, the USMLE program identified 832 examinees who had passing level exam results whose validity the USMLE program had a significant and good faith basis for questioning, according to court records. 

Of the total, 618 examinees had one Step score flagged as being of questioned validity, 202 examinees had two Step exam scores flagged, and 12 examinees had scores flagged on all three Step exams. 

NBME Defends Departure From Traditional Procedures

In court documents, NBME disputed claims that it violated its own procedures by invalidating the exam scores. Giri’s report contends that examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal — during which time, their scores are treated as valid. 

But the NBME said the USMLE program is authorized to take any actions it deems appropriate in response to concerns regarding score validity if the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review or the USMLE Composite Committee concludes that alternative or supplemental procedures are warranted in response to a given set of facts or circumstances. 

“Following the month-long investigation and analysis…the USMLE program concluded that alternative procedures were warranted to address the score invalidity concerns identified in the interest of providing a process that is timely, efficient, effective, and fair, and given the large number of examinees involved in the investigation,” the board stated in its legal response. 

In his order, Cooper wrote the current scenario, which implicates that more than 800 test-takers, is “clearly a situation calling for a procedure geared toward efficiency.” No evidence shows the board would not have taken similarly swift action if confronted with evidence of cheating on a comparable scale elsewhere, he wrote. 

The judge also denied Giri’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff has the option to renew the motion should the case proceed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Calling the matter “a danger the public should not be forced to shoulder,” a federal judge has rejected a plea to temporarily restore the scores of 832 medical graduates from Nepal who are suspected of cheating on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). 

In a February 23 order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, denied Latika Giri’s emergency motion to block the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) from invalidating the scores, ruling the public interest plainly weighs against granting the request. 

“First and foremost, is the overriding interest in public safety,” Cooper wrote in his 32-page order. “This is a case about the credentials of doctors applying to medical residency programs…Granting the preliminary injunction would create an unacceptable risk that individuals who lack the requisite knowledge and skills they purport to possess because they achieved their exam scores fraudulently will be administering medical care to unsuspecting patients across the nation.”

Attorneys for Giri did not return messages seeking comment about the order. 

The NBME also did not return messages seeking comment. The board previously said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The decision is the latest development in a widespread cheating scandal. Giri, an international medical graduate (IMG) from Kathmandu, sued NBME earlier this month claiming the board discriminated against Nepali medical graduates when it invalidated hundreds of exam scores linked to the country. 

Giri also accused NBME of violating its own procedures when it voided the scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal. She asked the district court to block NBME from invalidating her exam scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. 

In court documents, NBME argued that it did not invalidate the scores because the examinees were Nepali but because staff concluded that there was “a good faith basis for questioning the validity of the scores.” 

The invalidations were based on concerns that the results reflected prior access to secure exam content rather than knowledge and understanding of the medical principles and skills the exams are intended to assess, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

“The USMLE program took reasonable and appropriate actions to prevent the significant harm and disruption that would result from allowing potentially unqualified individuals to participate in the 2024 residency Match,” the NBME stated in court documents. “If granted, the requested injunction would cause enormous harm not only to NBME… but also to state licensing authorities, which rely upon USMLE results to help ensure that physicians have the minimum competencies needed to provide safe and effective health care.”

In his order, Cooper wrote that Giri has not proven the board’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors. 

“Nothing in the present record suggests that NBME went looking for a problem in Nepal out of ethnicity-or national-origin based [sic] suspicion,” Cooper wrote. “[It] followed the trail of evidence, including tips about organized cheating taking place in medical schools and at a testing center located in Nepal, and on an online forum for which a ‘nexus to Nepal’ was a ticket to admission.”

NBME: Nepal Outperformed All Other Countries on USMLE 

Court documents shed more light on NBME’s investigation into the suspected cheating and on the anomalous patterns the board allegedly discovered from Nepal medical graduates. 

In response to anonymous tips, the USMLE program in early 2023 asked the NBME Psychometrics and Data Analysis (PADA) unit to analyze examinee performance data for test centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan, according to court records. Within the initial data analysis, the data involving the single test center in Nepal was “the most extreme,” the unit found. 

Out of more than 400 test centers across the world, including those in the United States, the test center in Nepal produced the highest test scores in the world for Step 1 in 2021 and 2022 and the highest test scores in the world for Step 2 CK in 2022, according to court documents. For the 2022 Step 1 exam for example, the average score of examinees testing in the Nepal test center was 240. No other test center in the world had an average examinee score above 227, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

The median item response time for examinees who tested at the Nepal test center in 2022 was also among the fastest of all international test centers for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, investigators found. 

In addition, the volume of examinees taking the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK at the Nepal test center in Nepal had sharply increased. Step 1 volume more than doubled in the Nepal test center from 281 examinees in 2019 to 662 examinees in 2022, according to court documents. 

The rapid increase continued in 2023, when examinee volume was nearly three-and-a-half times higher than the 2019 volume. The data were consistent with anonymous tips received by the USMLE program office, suggesting there may be wide-scale collection and sharing of live USMLE exam content within Nepal. 

Investigation Finds Similar Correct and Incorrect Answers 

Agreement similarity among the exams analyzed also raised red flags. Investigators ran an “agreement analysis” for all examinees who tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan as well as two centers in India, according to court documents. 

For the 2022 Step 1 exam and the 2021 and 2022 Step 2 CK exam, the analysis showed a substantially higher percentage of examinees with a statistically significant level of agreement matches in the examine group that tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, and India compared with the baseline group, according to legal records. 

The vast majority of examinees with a statistically significant number of matching incorrect answers tested at the Nepal test center, data showed. 

Further analysis found that examinee volumes increased considerably at the Nepal test center in the months prior to the USMLE program releasing new test items, “suggesting that candidates who had prior access to disclosed exam questions wanted to test before new questions came into the item pool.”

Investigators also identified posts on social medial and in online chat rooms suggesting groups were collecting and sharing large amounts of secure exam material in private groups. Some posts advised examinees to use the full examination time when taking the USMLE “to avoid raising suspicion about having had prior access to secure exam materials,” according to court documents. 

From its investigation and analysis, the USMLE program identified 832 examinees who had passing level exam results whose validity the USMLE program had a significant and good faith basis for questioning, according to court records. 

Of the total, 618 examinees had one Step score flagged as being of questioned validity, 202 examinees had two Step exam scores flagged, and 12 examinees had scores flagged on all three Step exams. 

NBME Defends Departure From Traditional Procedures

In court documents, NBME disputed claims that it violated its own procedures by invalidating the exam scores. Giri’s report contends that examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal — during which time, their scores are treated as valid. 

But the NBME said the USMLE program is authorized to take any actions it deems appropriate in response to concerns regarding score validity if the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review or the USMLE Composite Committee concludes that alternative or supplemental procedures are warranted in response to a given set of facts or circumstances. 

“Following the month-long investigation and analysis…the USMLE program concluded that alternative procedures were warranted to address the score invalidity concerns identified in the interest of providing a process that is timely, efficient, effective, and fair, and given the large number of examinees involved in the investigation,” the board stated in its legal response. 

In his order, Cooper wrote the current scenario, which implicates that more than 800 test-takers, is “clearly a situation calling for a procedure geared toward efficiency.” No evidence shows the board would not have taken similarly swift action if confronted with evidence of cheating on a comparable scale elsewhere, he wrote. 

The judge also denied Giri’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff has the option to renew the motion should the case proceed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a front-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, metformin is among the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States. In 2021 alone, clinicians wrote more than 91 million orders for the medication — up from 40 million 2004.

But is metformin just getting started? Emerging evidence suggests the drug may be effective for a much broader range of conditions beyond managing high blood glucose, including various cancers, obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and renal diseases. As the evidence for diverse uses accumulates, many trials have launched, with researchers looking to expand metformin’s indications and validate or explore new directions.

Metformin’s long history as a pharmaceutical includes an herbal ancestry, recognition in 1918 for its ability to lower blood glucose, being cast aside because of toxicity fears in the 1930s, rediscovery and synthesis in Europe in the 1940s, the first reported use for diabetes in 1957, and approval in the United States in 1994.

The drug has maintained its place as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes since 2011, when it was first included in the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list.

“The focus hitherto has been primarily on its insulin sensitization effects,” Akshay Jain, MD, a clinical and research endocrinologist at TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization.

“The recent surge of renewed interest is in part related to its postulated effects on multiple other receptors,” he said. “In my mind, the metformin data on coronary artery disease reduction and cancer-protective effects have come farther along than other disease states.”

Cardiovascular Outcomes

Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, PhD, chief of the cardiology section at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, is leading the VA-IMPACT trial. Despite metformin’s long history and widespread use, he said his study is the first placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial of the drug.

Launched in 2023, the study tests the hypothesis that metformin reduces the risk for death or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes and established coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease, Dr. Schwartz said. The trial is being conducted at roughly 40 VA medical centers, with a planned enrollment of 7410 patients. The estimated completion date is March 2029.

“The principal mechanism of action of metformin is through activation of AMP [adenosine monophosphate]–activated protein kinase, a central pathway in metabolic regulation, cell protection, and survival,” Dr. Schwartz explained. “Experimental data have demonstrated attenuated development of atherosclerosis, reduced myocardial infarct size, improved endothelial function, and antiarrhythmic actions — none of those dependent on the presence of diabetes.”

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues decided to test their hypothesis in people with prediabetes, rather than diabetes, to create a “true placebo-controlled comparison,” he said.

“If patients with type 2 diabetes had been chosen, there would be potential for confounding because a placebo group would require more treatment with other active antihyperglycemic medications to achieve the same degree of glycemic control as a metformin group,” Dr. Schwartz said.

“If proven efficacious in the VA-IMPACT trial, metformin could provide an inexpensive, generally safe, and well-tolerated approach to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large segment of the population,” Dr. Schwartz added. “Perhaps the old dog can learn some new tricks.”

Other recruiting trials looking at cardiovascular-related outcomes include Met-PEF, LIMIT, and Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy to Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation.

Reducing Cancer Risks

Sai Yendamuri, MD, chair of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Laboratory at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, is leading a phase 2 trial exploring whether metformin can prevent lung cancer in people with overweight or obesity who are at a high risk for the malignancy.

The study, which has accrued about 60% of its estimated enrollment, also will assess whether metformin can reprogram participants’ immune systems, with a view toward reducing the activity of regulatory T cells that are linked to development of tumors.

“In our preclinical and retrospective clinical data, we found that metformin had anticancer effects but only if the patients were overweight,” Dr. Yendamuri said. “In mice, we find that obesity increases regulatory T-cell function, which suppresses the immune system of the lungs. This effect is reversed by metformin.” The team is conducting the current study to examine if this happens in patients, as well. Results are expected next year.

Research is underway in other tumor types, including oral and endometrial, and brain cancers.

Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease

Cognitive function — or at least delaying its erosion — represents another front for metformin. José A. Luchsinger, MD, MPH, vice-chair for clinical and epidemiological research and director of the section on geriatrics, gerontology, and aging at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, is heading a phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial assessing the ability of the drug to prevent Alzheimer›s disease.

The study investigators hope to enroll 326 men and women aged 55-90 years with early and late mild cognitive impairment, overweight or obesity, and no diabetes.

“The hypothesis is that improving insulin and glucose levels can lead to lowering the risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Luchsinger said. Recruitment should be complete by the end of 2024 and results are expected in late 2026.

Similar studies are underway in Europe and Asia.

Other areas of investigation, while tantalizing, are mostly in early stages, although bolstered by preclinical and mechanistic studies. The authors of a recent review on the potential mechanisms of action of metformin and existing evidence of the drug›s effectiveness — or lack thereof — in treating diseases other than diabetes, wrote: “Collectively, these data raise the question: Is metformin a drug for all diseases? It remains unclear as to whether all of these putative beneficial effects are secondary to its actions as an antihyperglycemic and insulin-sensitizing drug, or result from other cellular actions, including inhibition of mTOR (mammalian target for rapamycin), or direct antiviral actions.”

Off-Label Uses

Metformin currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although it is also the only antidiabetic medication for prediabetes currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association.

Some studies currently are looking at its use in a variety of off-label indications, including obesity, gestational diabetes, weight gain from antipsychotics, and polycystic ovary syndrome.

For the most part, metformin is considered a safe drug, but it is not risk-free, Dr. Jain cautioned.

“Although it would certainly be helpful to see if this inexpensive medication that’s universally available can help in disease states, one shouldn’t overlook the potential risk of adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal, potential vitamin B12 deficiency, blunting of skeletal muscle development and the rare risk of lactic acidosis in those with kidney impairment,” he said.

“Similarly, with recent reports of the carcinogenic potential of certain formulations of long-acting metformin that contained NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine], it would be imperative that these kinks are removed before we incorporate metformin as the gift that keeps giving.”

Dr. Jain reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Yendamuri disclosed serving on the scientific advisory board member of Karkinos Healthcare and research funding from Lumeda for the metformin study. Dr. Luchsinger reported receiving donated metformin and matching placebo from EMD Serono, a subsidiary of Merck, for the MAP study. Dr. Schwartz received research support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs as National Chair of the VA-IMPACT trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a front-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, metformin is among the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States. In 2021 alone, clinicians wrote more than 91 million orders for the medication — up from 40 million 2004.

But is metformin just getting started? Emerging evidence suggests the drug may be effective for a much broader range of conditions beyond managing high blood glucose, including various cancers, obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and renal diseases. As the evidence for diverse uses accumulates, many trials have launched, with researchers looking to expand metformin’s indications and validate or explore new directions.

Metformin’s long history as a pharmaceutical includes an herbal ancestry, recognition in 1918 for its ability to lower blood glucose, being cast aside because of toxicity fears in the 1930s, rediscovery and synthesis in Europe in the 1940s, the first reported use for diabetes in 1957, and approval in the United States in 1994.

The drug has maintained its place as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes since 2011, when it was first included in the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list.

“The focus hitherto has been primarily on its insulin sensitization effects,” Akshay Jain, MD, a clinical and research endocrinologist at TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization.

“The recent surge of renewed interest is in part related to its postulated effects on multiple other receptors,” he said. “In my mind, the metformin data on coronary artery disease reduction and cancer-protective effects have come farther along than other disease states.”

Cardiovascular Outcomes

Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, PhD, chief of the cardiology section at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, is leading the VA-IMPACT trial. Despite metformin’s long history and widespread use, he said his study is the first placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial of the drug.

Launched in 2023, the study tests the hypothesis that metformin reduces the risk for death or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes and established coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease, Dr. Schwartz said. The trial is being conducted at roughly 40 VA medical centers, with a planned enrollment of 7410 patients. The estimated completion date is March 2029.

“The principal mechanism of action of metformin is through activation of AMP [adenosine monophosphate]–activated protein kinase, a central pathway in metabolic regulation, cell protection, and survival,” Dr. Schwartz explained. “Experimental data have demonstrated attenuated development of atherosclerosis, reduced myocardial infarct size, improved endothelial function, and antiarrhythmic actions — none of those dependent on the presence of diabetes.”

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues decided to test their hypothesis in people with prediabetes, rather than diabetes, to create a “true placebo-controlled comparison,” he said.

“If patients with type 2 diabetes had been chosen, there would be potential for confounding because a placebo group would require more treatment with other active antihyperglycemic medications to achieve the same degree of glycemic control as a metformin group,” Dr. Schwartz said.

“If proven efficacious in the VA-IMPACT trial, metformin could provide an inexpensive, generally safe, and well-tolerated approach to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large segment of the population,” Dr. Schwartz added. “Perhaps the old dog can learn some new tricks.”

Other recruiting trials looking at cardiovascular-related outcomes include Met-PEF, LIMIT, and Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy to Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation.

Reducing Cancer Risks

Sai Yendamuri, MD, chair of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Laboratory at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, is leading a phase 2 trial exploring whether metformin can prevent lung cancer in people with overweight or obesity who are at a high risk for the malignancy.

The study, which has accrued about 60% of its estimated enrollment, also will assess whether metformin can reprogram participants’ immune systems, with a view toward reducing the activity of regulatory T cells that are linked to development of tumors.

“In our preclinical and retrospective clinical data, we found that metformin had anticancer effects but only if the patients were overweight,” Dr. Yendamuri said. “In mice, we find that obesity increases regulatory T-cell function, which suppresses the immune system of the lungs. This effect is reversed by metformin.” The team is conducting the current study to examine if this happens in patients, as well. Results are expected next year.

Research is underway in other tumor types, including oral and endometrial, and brain cancers.

Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease

Cognitive function — or at least delaying its erosion — represents another front for metformin. José A. Luchsinger, MD, MPH, vice-chair for clinical and epidemiological research and director of the section on geriatrics, gerontology, and aging at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, is heading a phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial assessing the ability of the drug to prevent Alzheimer›s disease.

The study investigators hope to enroll 326 men and women aged 55-90 years with early and late mild cognitive impairment, overweight or obesity, and no diabetes.

“The hypothesis is that improving insulin and glucose levels can lead to lowering the risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Luchsinger said. Recruitment should be complete by the end of 2024 and results are expected in late 2026.

Similar studies are underway in Europe and Asia.

Other areas of investigation, while tantalizing, are mostly in early stages, although bolstered by preclinical and mechanistic studies. The authors of a recent review on the potential mechanisms of action of metformin and existing evidence of the drug›s effectiveness — or lack thereof — in treating diseases other than diabetes, wrote: “Collectively, these data raise the question: Is metformin a drug for all diseases? It remains unclear as to whether all of these putative beneficial effects are secondary to its actions as an antihyperglycemic and insulin-sensitizing drug, or result from other cellular actions, including inhibition of mTOR (mammalian target for rapamycin), or direct antiviral actions.”

Off-Label Uses

Metformin currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although it is also the only antidiabetic medication for prediabetes currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association.

Some studies currently are looking at its use in a variety of off-label indications, including obesity, gestational diabetes, weight gain from antipsychotics, and polycystic ovary syndrome.

For the most part, metformin is considered a safe drug, but it is not risk-free, Dr. Jain cautioned.

“Although it would certainly be helpful to see if this inexpensive medication that’s universally available can help in disease states, one shouldn’t overlook the potential risk of adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal, potential vitamin B12 deficiency, blunting of skeletal muscle development and the rare risk of lactic acidosis in those with kidney impairment,” he said.

“Similarly, with recent reports of the carcinogenic potential of certain formulations of long-acting metformin that contained NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine], it would be imperative that these kinks are removed before we incorporate metformin as the gift that keeps giving.”

Dr. Jain reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Yendamuri disclosed serving on the scientific advisory board member of Karkinos Healthcare and research funding from Lumeda for the metformin study. Dr. Luchsinger reported receiving donated metformin and matching placebo from EMD Serono, a subsidiary of Merck, for the MAP study. Dr. Schwartz received research support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs as National Chair of the VA-IMPACT trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a front-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, metformin is among the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States. In 2021 alone, clinicians wrote more than 91 million orders for the medication — up from 40 million 2004.

But is metformin just getting started? Emerging evidence suggests the drug may be effective for a much broader range of conditions beyond managing high blood glucose, including various cancers, obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and renal diseases. As the evidence for diverse uses accumulates, many trials have launched, with researchers looking to expand metformin’s indications and validate or explore new directions.

Metformin’s long history as a pharmaceutical includes an herbal ancestry, recognition in 1918 for its ability to lower blood glucose, being cast aside because of toxicity fears in the 1930s, rediscovery and synthesis in Europe in the 1940s, the first reported use for diabetes in 1957, and approval in the United States in 1994.

The drug has maintained its place as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes since 2011, when it was first included in the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list.

“The focus hitherto has been primarily on its insulin sensitization effects,” Akshay Jain, MD, a clinical and research endocrinologist at TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization.

“The recent surge of renewed interest is in part related to its postulated effects on multiple other receptors,” he said. “In my mind, the metformin data on coronary artery disease reduction and cancer-protective effects have come farther along than other disease states.”

Cardiovascular Outcomes

Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, PhD, chief of the cardiology section at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, is leading the VA-IMPACT trial. Despite metformin’s long history and widespread use, he said his study is the first placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial of the drug.

Launched in 2023, the study tests the hypothesis that metformin reduces the risk for death or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes and established coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease, Dr. Schwartz said. The trial is being conducted at roughly 40 VA medical centers, with a planned enrollment of 7410 patients. The estimated completion date is March 2029.

“The principal mechanism of action of metformin is through activation of AMP [adenosine monophosphate]–activated protein kinase, a central pathway in metabolic regulation, cell protection, and survival,” Dr. Schwartz explained. “Experimental data have demonstrated attenuated development of atherosclerosis, reduced myocardial infarct size, improved endothelial function, and antiarrhythmic actions — none of those dependent on the presence of diabetes.”

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues decided to test their hypothesis in people with prediabetes, rather than diabetes, to create a “true placebo-controlled comparison,” he said.

“If patients with type 2 diabetes had been chosen, there would be potential for confounding because a placebo group would require more treatment with other active antihyperglycemic medications to achieve the same degree of glycemic control as a metformin group,” Dr. Schwartz said.

“If proven efficacious in the VA-IMPACT trial, metformin could provide an inexpensive, generally safe, and well-tolerated approach to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large segment of the population,” Dr. Schwartz added. “Perhaps the old dog can learn some new tricks.”

Other recruiting trials looking at cardiovascular-related outcomes include Met-PEF, LIMIT, and Metformin as an Adjunctive Therapy to Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation.

Reducing Cancer Risks

Sai Yendamuri, MD, chair of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Laboratory at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, is leading a phase 2 trial exploring whether metformin can prevent lung cancer in people with overweight or obesity who are at a high risk for the malignancy.

The study, which has accrued about 60% of its estimated enrollment, also will assess whether metformin can reprogram participants’ immune systems, with a view toward reducing the activity of regulatory T cells that are linked to development of tumors.

“In our preclinical and retrospective clinical data, we found that metformin had anticancer effects but only if the patients were overweight,” Dr. Yendamuri said. “In mice, we find that obesity increases regulatory T-cell function, which suppresses the immune system of the lungs. This effect is reversed by metformin.” The team is conducting the current study to examine if this happens in patients, as well. Results are expected next year.

Research is underway in other tumor types, including oral and endometrial, and brain cancers.

Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease

Cognitive function — or at least delaying its erosion — represents another front for metformin. José A. Luchsinger, MD, MPH, vice-chair for clinical and epidemiological research and director of the section on geriatrics, gerontology, and aging at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, is heading a phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial assessing the ability of the drug to prevent Alzheimer›s disease.

The study investigators hope to enroll 326 men and women aged 55-90 years with early and late mild cognitive impairment, overweight or obesity, and no diabetes.

“The hypothesis is that improving insulin and glucose levels can lead to lowering the risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Luchsinger said. Recruitment should be complete by the end of 2024 and results are expected in late 2026.

Similar studies are underway in Europe and Asia.

Other areas of investigation, while tantalizing, are mostly in early stages, although bolstered by preclinical and mechanistic studies. The authors of a recent review on the potential mechanisms of action of metformin and existing evidence of the drug›s effectiveness — or lack thereof — in treating diseases other than diabetes, wrote: “Collectively, these data raise the question: Is metformin a drug for all diseases? It remains unclear as to whether all of these putative beneficial effects are secondary to its actions as an antihyperglycemic and insulin-sensitizing drug, or result from other cellular actions, including inhibition of mTOR (mammalian target for rapamycin), or direct antiviral actions.”

Off-Label Uses

Metformin currently is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although it is also the only antidiabetic medication for prediabetes currently recommended by the American Diabetes Association.

Some studies currently are looking at its use in a variety of off-label indications, including obesity, gestational diabetes, weight gain from antipsychotics, and polycystic ovary syndrome.

For the most part, metformin is considered a safe drug, but it is not risk-free, Dr. Jain cautioned.

“Although it would certainly be helpful to see if this inexpensive medication that’s universally available can help in disease states, one shouldn’t overlook the potential risk of adverse effects, such as gastrointestinal, potential vitamin B12 deficiency, blunting of skeletal muscle development and the rare risk of lactic acidosis in those with kidney impairment,” he said.

“Similarly, with recent reports of the carcinogenic potential of certain formulations of long-acting metformin that contained NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine], it would be imperative that these kinks are removed before we incorporate metformin as the gift that keeps giving.”

Dr. Jain reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Yendamuri disclosed serving on the scientific advisory board member of Karkinos Healthcare and research funding from Lumeda for the metformin study. Dr. Luchsinger reported receiving donated metformin and matching placebo from EMD Serono, a subsidiary of Merck, for the MAP study. Dr. Schwartz received research support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs as National Chair of the VA-IMPACT trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Accelerometer-measured physical activity (PA), whether light, moderate, or vigorous, is associated with lower risk for heart failure (HF) in older women while more sedentary time is associated with higher HF risk in these women, results of a new study suggest. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5951 women aged 63-99 years (mean age, 78.6 years), including 33.7% Black, 17.2% Hispanic, and 49.2% White individuals without HF from the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study, an ancillary to the Women’s Health Initiative Long-Life Study.
• Participants wore an accelerometer on their hip 24 hours a day for up to 7 consecutive days except when in water, kept nightly sleep logs, completed questionnaires to provide information on medical history and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and self-rated their general health status.
• Researchers recorded their use of assistive walking devices; determined body mass index as well as blood pressure; obtained fasting serum glucose, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; and scored participants’ multimorbidity.
• They determined intensity-specific PA using vector magnitude acceleration cut points (light PA, 19-518 counts/15 s; moderate to vigorous PA [MVPA], > 518) and steps per day using dedicated software, and they quantified sedentary time (total and mean bout duration).
• The primary outcome was overall self-reported HF later adjudicated by physicians using medical record reviews; secondary endpoints were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), classified by an EF of < 45% or 45% or > 45%, respectively, after cardiac imaging.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 407 HF cases (including 257 HFpEF and 110 HFrEF) were identified during a mean of 7.5 years of follow-up.
• HFrEF was not associated with PA measures in the fully adjusted model (which controlled extensively for health and physical functioning status), but overall HF and HFpEF were inversely associated with total PA (per 1-standard deviation [SD] increment: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95 and HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91, respectively), light PA (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98 and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, respectively) and MVPA (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01, respectively).
• With regard to daily steps, each 1-SD increment was associated with a significant 26% lower risk for overall HF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and 29% lower risk for HFpEF (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), with these inverse risks becoming significant at about 2000 steps/d, “far less than the often touted 10,000 steps/d for promoting health benefits,” noted the authors.
• Total sedentary time was positively associated (per 1 SD in the fully adjusted model) with risks of overall HF (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33) and HFpEF (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) but not HFrEF; mean sedentary bout duration was significantly inversely associated with HFrEF (per 1 SD: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97), although the relatively small number of cases at the extremes of bout duration may contribute to this unexpected inverse association, said the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The implications of promoting PA, regardless of intensity, for primary HFpEF prevention in later life, “has profound public health and clinical relevance,” the authors concluded. They noted that HFpEF is a “burgeoning epidemic” that disproportionately affects women and minorities with limited available therapies.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study, led by Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo, New York, was published online on February 21, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was only a single accelerometer assessment of PA and sedentary exposures and relatively small numbers of HFrEF cases, which restricted analytic precision. Although researchers controlled for several established vascular biomarkers, they did not have HF-specific measures such as cardiac troponin or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide. It’s unknown if the findings can be generalized to men and populations dissimilar to women in OPACH.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services. LaMonte reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; see paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Accelerometer-measured physical activity (PA), whether light, moderate, or vigorous, is associated with lower risk for heart failure (HF) in older women while more sedentary time is associated with higher HF risk in these women, results of a new study suggest. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5951 women aged 63-99 years (mean age, 78.6 years), including 33.7% Black, 17.2% Hispanic, and 49.2% White individuals without HF from the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study, an ancillary to the Women’s Health Initiative Long-Life Study.
• Participants wore an accelerometer on their hip 24 hours a day for up to 7 consecutive days except when in water, kept nightly sleep logs, completed questionnaires to provide information on medical history and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and self-rated their general health status.
• Researchers recorded their use of assistive walking devices; determined body mass index as well as blood pressure; obtained fasting serum glucose, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; and scored participants’ multimorbidity.
• They determined intensity-specific PA using vector magnitude acceleration cut points (light PA, 19-518 counts/15 s; moderate to vigorous PA [MVPA], > 518) and steps per day using dedicated software, and they quantified sedentary time (total and mean bout duration).
• The primary outcome was overall self-reported HF later adjudicated by physicians using medical record reviews; secondary endpoints were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), classified by an EF of < 45% or 45% or > 45%, respectively, after cardiac imaging.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 407 HF cases (including 257 HFpEF and 110 HFrEF) were identified during a mean of 7.5 years of follow-up.
• HFrEF was not associated with PA measures in the fully adjusted model (which controlled extensively for health and physical functioning status), but overall HF and HFpEF were inversely associated with total PA (per 1-standard deviation [SD] increment: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95 and HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91, respectively), light PA (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98 and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, respectively) and MVPA (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01, respectively).
• With regard to daily steps, each 1-SD increment was associated with a significant 26% lower risk for overall HF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and 29% lower risk for HFpEF (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), with these inverse risks becoming significant at about 2000 steps/d, “far less than the often touted 10,000 steps/d for promoting health benefits,” noted the authors.
• Total sedentary time was positively associated (per 1 SD in the fully adjusted model) with risks of overall HF (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33) and HFpEF (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) but not HFrEF; mean sedentary bout duration was significantly inversely associated with HFrEF (per 1 SD: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97), although the relatively small number of cases at the extremes of bout duration may contribute to this unexpected inverse association, said the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The implications of promoting PA, regardless of intensity, for primary HFpEF prevention in later life, “has profound public health and clinical relevance,” the authors concluded. They noted that HFpEF is a “burgeoning epidemic” that disproportionately affects women and minorities with limited available therapies.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study, led by Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo, New York, was published online on February 21, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was only a single accelerometer assessment of PA and sedentary exposures and relatively small numbers of HFrEF cases, which restricted analytic precision. Although researchers controlled for several established vascular biomarkers, they did not have HF-specific measures such as cardiac troponin or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide. It’s unknown if the findings can be generalized to men and populations dissimilar to women in OPACH.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services. LaMonte reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; see paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Accelerometer-measured physical activity (PA), whether light, moderate, or vigorous, is associated with lower risk for heart failure (HF) in older women while more sedentary time is associated with higher HF risk in these women, results of a new study suggest. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5951 women aged 63-99 years (mean age, 78.6 years), including 33.7% Black, 17.2% Hispanic, and 49.2% White individuals without HF from the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study, an ancillary to the Women’s Health Initiative Long-Life Study.
• Participants wore an accelerometer on their hip 24 hours a day for up to 7 consecutive days except when in water, kept nightly sleep logs, completed questionnaires to provide information on medical history and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and self-rated their general health status.
• Researchers recorded their use of assistive walking devices; determined body mass index as well as blood pressure; obtained fasting serum glucose, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; and scored participants’ multimorbidity.
• They determined intensity-specific PA using vector magnitude acceleration cut points (light PA, 19-518 counts/15 s; moderate to vigorous PA [MVPA], > 518) and steps per day using dedicated software, and they quantified sedentary time (total and mean bout duration).
• The primary outcome was overall self-reported HF later adjudicated by physicians using medical record reviews; secondary endpoints were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), classified by an EF of < 45% or 45% or > 45%, respectively, after cardiac imaging.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 407 HF cases (including 257 HFpEF and 110 HFrEF) were identified during a mean of 7.5 years of follow-up.
• HFrEF was not associated with PA measures in the fully adjusted model (which controlled extensively for health and physical functioning status), but overall HF and HFpEF were inversely associated with total PA (per 1-standard deviation [SD] increment: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95 and HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91, respectively), light PA (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98 and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, respectively) and MVPA (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01, respectively).
• With regard to daily steps, each 1-SD increment was associated with a significant 26% lower risk for overall HF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and 29% lower risk for HFpEF (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), with these inverse risks becoming significant at about 2000 steps/d, “far less than the often touted 10,000 steps/d for promoting health benefits,” noted the authors.
• Total sedentary time was positively associated (per 1 SD in the fully adjusted model) with risks of overall HF (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33) and HFpEF (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) but not HFrEF; mean sedentary bout duration was significantly inversely associated with HFrEF (per 1 SD: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97), although the relatively small number of cases at the extremes of bout duration may contribute to this unexpected inverse association, said the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The implications of promoting PA, regardless of intensity, for primary HFpEF prevention in later life, “has profound public health and clinical relevance,” the authors concluded. They noted that HFpEF is a “burgeoning epidemic” that disproportionately affects women and minorities with limited available therapies.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study, led by Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo, New York, was published online on February 21, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was only a single accelerometer assessment of PA and sedentary exposures and relatively small numbers of HFrEF cases, which restricted analytic precision. Although researchers controlled for several established vascular biomarkers, they did not have HF-specific measures such as cardiac troponin or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide. It’s unknown if the findings can be generalized to men and populations dissimilar to women in OPACH.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services. LaMonte reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; see paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intermittent hypoxemia prompted higher postprandial plasma triglyceride levels in men than in women compared with normoxia.

METHODOLOGY:

• Potential gender differences in the impact of intermittent hypoxemia on triglycerides have not been well studied, despite the increased risk for metabolic comorbidities in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
• The researchers recruited 24 healthy young adults with a mean age of 23.3 years for the 12 men and 21.3 years for the 12 women.
• Participants consumed a high-fat meal followed by 6 hours of exposure to intermittent hypoxemia or ambient air; the primary outcome was changes in postprandial plasma triglyceride levels.

TAKEAWAY:

• Intermittent hypoxemia was associated with significantly higher postprandial triglycerides in men but not in women.
• Women had lower levels of total triglycerides as well as denser triglyceride-rich lipoprotein triglycerides (TRL-TG) and buoyant TRL-TG in both normoxia and hypoxemia conditions compared with men.
• Glucose levels were significantly higher in men and significantly lower in women during intermittent hypoxemia compared with normoxia (P < .001 for both sexes).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although there is a need for larger confirmatory studies in individuals living with obstructive sleep apnea, this study demonstrates that intermittent hypoxemia alters triglyceride metabolism differently between men and women,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Nicholas Goulet, MD, of the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The study was published online in The Journal of Physiology on January 29, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study included the experimental design with simulated OSA, the small and homogeneous study population, the use of a specific profile for intermittent hypoxemia, and the use of a specific high-fat meal.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Association Médicale Universitaire de l’Hôpital Montfort. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intermittent hypoxemia prompted higher postprandial plasma triglyceride levels in men than in women compared with normoxia.

METHODOLOGY:

• Potential gender differences in the impact of intermittent hypoxemia on triglycerides have not been well studied, despite the increased risk for metabolic comorbidities in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
• The researchers recruited 24 healthy young adults with a mean age of 23.3 years for the 12 men and 21.3 years for the 12 women.
• Participants consumed a high-fat meal followed by 6 hours of exposure to intermittent hypoxemia or ambient air; the primary outcome was changes in postprandial plasma triglyceride levels.

TAKEAWAY:

• Intermittent hypoxemia was associated with significantly higher postprandial triglycerides in men but not in women.
• Women had lower levels of total triglycerides as well as denser triglyceride-rich lipoprotein triglycerides (TRL-TG) and buoyant TRL-TG in both normoxia and hypoxemia conditions compared with men.
• Glucose levels were significantly higher in men and significantly lower in women during intermittent hypoxemia compared with normoxia (P < .001 for both sexes).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although there is a need for larger confirmatory studies in individuals living with obstructive sleep apnea, this study demonstrates that intermittent hypoxemia alters triglyceride metabolism differently between men and women,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Nicholas Goulet, MD, of the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The study was published online in The Journal of Physiology on January 29, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study included the experimental design with simulated OSA, the small and homogeneous study population, the use of a specific profile for intermittent hypoxemia, and the use of a specific high-fat meal.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Association Médicale Universitaire de l’Hôpital Montfort. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intermittent hypoxemia prompted higher postprandial plasma triglyceride levels in men than in women compared with normoxia.

METHODOLOGY:

• Potential gender differences in the impact of intermittent hypoxemia on triglycerides have not been well studied, despite the increased risk for metabolic comorbidities in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
• The researchers recruited 24 healthy young adults with a mean age of 23.3 years for the 12 men and 21.3 years for the 12 women.
• Participants consumed a high-fat meal followed by 6 hours of exposure to intermittent hypoxemia or ambient air; the primary outcome was changes in postprandial plasma triglyceride levels.

TAKEAWAY:

• Intermittent hypoxemia was associated with significantly higher postprandial triglycerides in men but not in women.
• Women had lower levels of total triglycerides as well as denser triglyceride-rich lipoprotein triglycerides (TRL-TG) and buoyant TRL-TG in both normoxia and hypoxemia conditions compared with men.
• Glucose levels were significantly higher in men and significantly lower in women during intermittent hypoxemia compared with normoxia (P < .001 for both sexes).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although there is a need for larger confirmatory studies in individuals living with obstructive sleep apnea, this study demonstrates that intermittent hypoxemia alters triglyceride metabolism differently between men and women,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Nicholas Goulet, MD, of the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The study was published online in The Journal of Physiology on January 29, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study included the experimental design with simulated OSA, the small and homogeneous study population, the use of a specific profile for intermittent hypoxemia, and the use of a specific high-fat meal.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Association Médicale Universitaire de l’Hôpital Montfort. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Radiation exposure to the pulmonary veins during radiotherapy (RT) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) raises the risk for atrial fibrillation (AF), according to new findings.

METHODOLOGY:

• Arrhythmia — with AF being the most common type — affects roughly 11% of patients following lung cancer RT.
• Given RT’s recognized impact on cardiac tissues over time, researchers hypothesized that the dosage affecting pulmonary veins might contribute to the observed increased rates of AF after RT.
• To investigate, researchers looked back at 420 patients with NSCLC (52% women, median age 70) undergoing definitive RT (± chemo) with modern planning techniques at 55 Gy in 20 once-daily fractions over 4 weeks.
• Most patients underwent treatment planning using volumetric modulated arc therapy (50%) or static gantry intensity-modulated RT (20%). Chemotherapy was administered in a minority of cases (33%).
• Pulmonary veins were contoured on planning CT scans, and dose metrics were calculated. The association between pulmonary veins dose and incidence of new AF was evaluated, with AF verified by a cardiologist.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the entire cohort, 26 patients (6%) developed AF a median of 13 months after treatment. All cases of AF were grade 3 except for two grade 4 events.
• Radiation dose to the left and right pulmonary veins was significantly associated with incident AF. Dose volumes most strongly associated with AF were ≥ 55 Gy (V55) on the left and ≥ 10 Gy (V10) on the right.
• The risk for AF increased by 2% per percentage point increase in the left pulmonary veins V55 and 1% in the right pulmonary veins V10. The associations were statistically significant after accounting for cardiovascular factors and risk for death risk.
• The area under the curve for prediction of AF events was 0.64 (P = .02) for the left pulmonary veins V55 and 0.61 (P = .03) for the right pulmonary veins V10. The optimal thresholds for predicting AF were 2% and 54%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“The implications of these data are that actively sparing these structures could reduce the incidence of [AF], and where this is not possible, patients identified as being at high risk of AF could undergo active screening during follow-up,” the researchers said, adding that further validation of these findings should take place before implementation.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Gerard M. Walls, MB, MRCP, Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, was published online on January 4 in Radiotherapy and Oncology .

LIMITATIONS:

This was a single-center, retrospective study with a small number of AF events. The study may have underestimated the relationship between pulmonary vein irradiation and new AF events. The findings needed validation in larger datasets.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Radiation exposure to the pulmonary veins during radiotherapy (RT) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) raises the risk for atrial fibrillation (AF), according to new findings.

METHODOLOGY:

• Arrhythmia — with AF being the most common type — affects roughly 11% of patients following lung cancer RT.
• Given RT’s recognized impact on cardiac tissues over time, researchers hypothesized that the dosage affecting pulmonary veins might contribute to the observed increased rates of AF after RT.
• To investigate, researchers looked back at 420 patients with NSCLC (52% women, median age 70) undergoing definitive RT (± chemo) with modern planning techniques at 55 Gy in 20 once-daily fractions over 4 weeks.
• Most patients underwent treatment planning using volumetric modulated arc therapy (50%) or static gantry intensity-modulated RT (20%). Chemotherapy was administered in a minority of cases (33%).
• Pulmonary veins were contoured on planning CT scans, and dose metrics were calculated. The association between pulmonary veins dose and incidence of new AF was evaluated, with AF verified by a cardiologist.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the entire cohort, 26 patients (6%) developed AF a median of 13 months after treatment. All cases of AF were grade 3 except for two grade 4 events.
• Radiation dose to the left and right pulmonary veins was significantly associated with incident AF. Dose volumes most strongly associated with AF were ≥ 55 Gy (V55) on the left and ≥ 10 Gy (V10) on the right.
• The risk for AF increased by 2% per percentage point increase in the left pulmonary veins V55 and 1% in the right pulmonary veins V10. The associations were statistically significant after accounting for cardiovascular factors and risk for death risk.
• The area under the curve for prediction of AF events was 0.64 (P = .02) for the left pulmonary veins V55 and 0.61 (P = .03) for the right pulmonary veins V10. The optimal thresholds for predicting AF were 2% and 54%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“The implications of these data are that actively sparing these structures could reduce the incidence of [AF], and where this is not possible, patients identified as being at high risk of AF could undergo active screening during follow-up,” the researchers said, adding that further validation of these findings should take place before implementation.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Gerard M. Walls, MB, MRCP, Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, was published online on January 4 in Radiotherapy and Oncology .

LIMITATIONS:

This was a single-center, retrospective study with a small number of AF events. The study may have underestimated the relationship between pulmonary vein irradiation and new AF events. The findings needed validation in larger datasets.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Radiation exposure to the pulmonary veins during radiotherapy (RT) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) raises the risk for atrial fibrillation (AF), according to new findings.

METHODOLOGY:

• Arrhythmia — with AF being the most common type — affects roughly 11% of patients following lung cancer RT.
• Given RT’s recognized impact on cardiac tissues over time, researchers hypothesized that the dosage affecting pulmonary veins might contribute to the observed increased rates of AF after RT.
• To investigate, researchers looked back at 420 patients with NSCLC (52% women, median age 70) undergoing definitive RT (± chemo) with modern planning techniques at 55 Gy in 20 once-daily fractions over 4 weeks.
• Most patients underwent treatment planning using volumetric modulated arc therapy (50%) or static gantry intensity-modulated RT (20%). Chemotherapy was administered in a minority of cases (33%).
• Pulmonary veins were contoured on planning CT scans, and dose metrics were calculated. The association between pulmonary veins dose and incidence of new AF was evaluated, with AF verified by a cardiologist.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the entire cohort, 26 patients (6%) developed AF a median of 13 months after treatment. All cases of AF were grade 3 except for two grade 4 events.
• Radiation dose to the left and right pulmonary veins was significantly associated with incident AF. Dose volumes most strongly associated with AF were ≥ 55 Gy (V55) on the left and ≥ 10 Gy (V10) on the right.
• The risk for AF increased by 2% per percentage point increase in the left pulmonary veins V55 and 1% in the right pulmonary veins V10. The associations were statistically significant after accounting for cardiovascular factors and risk for death risk.
• The area under the curve for prediction of AF events was 0.64 (P = .02) for the left pulmonary veins V55 and 0.61 (P = .03) for the right pulmonary veins V10. The optimal thresholds for predicting AF were 2% and 54%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“The implications of these data are that actively sparing these structures could reduce the incidence of [AF], and where this is not possible, patients identified as being at high risk of AF could undergo active screening during follow-up,” the researchers said, adding that further validation of these findings should take place before implementation.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Gerard M. Walls, MB, MRCP, Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, was published online on January 4 in Radiotherapy and Oncology .

LIMITATIONS:

This was a single-center, retrospective study with a small number of AF events. The study may have underestimated the relationship between pulmonary vein irradiation and new AF events. The findings needed validation in larger datasets.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with psoriasis, the risk of mortality was strongly associated with hepatic injury, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric affective disorders, but was reduced among those who received systemic therapy with biologics, researchers from Canada report.

Those are key findings from a large retrospective registry study of patients with psoriasis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting approximately 3% of the western populations, bears a higher risk of mortality compared to healthy individuals, possibly by inducing systemic inflammation associated with numerous comorbidities, especially cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and others,” wrote corresponding author Robert Gniadecki, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues. “It has been argued that the use of systemic immunomodulatory agents quenches systemic inflammation and potentially improves patient survival. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited.”

To investigate the impact of comorbidities and systemic therapies on all-cause mortality in psoriasis, the researchers used the Alberta Health Services Data Repository of Reporting database from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2019, which represents a population base of 4.47 million individuals. They extracted data on 18,618 psoriasis cases and 55,854 controls, stratified cases according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a surrogate measure for comorbidity burden, and by the type of therapy received, and conducted statistical analyses including Cox proportional hazards regression to determine absolute hazard ratios representing relative effects of specific demographic and comorbidity factors on mortality within groups.

The median age in both cohorts was 48 years, and 51% were male. The researchers observed that mortality in the psoriasis cohort was significantly higher than in the controls (5.7% vs. 3.8%, respectively; P < .05), with a median age at the time of death of 72 vs. 74.4 years.

The CCI and comorbidities strongly predicted mortality, especially drug-induced liver injury (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78), bipolar disorder and suicidal ideation (HR, 1.24-1.58), and major cardiovascular diseases, which included myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) (HR, 1.2-1.4).

Among patients in the psoriasis cohort, survival of those treated with biologic agents was higher than in controls, even after matching for CCI (3.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively, P < .05). “These patients also exhibit reduced overall mortality compared to those treated with methotrexate or topical agents,” Dr. Gniadecki and colleagues wrote. “There was no difference in mortality between methotrexate patients and the topical therapy patients, but any of those treatment groups had superior survival compared to the no-treatment cohort.”

They added that despite better survival among patients treated with biologic agents, no significant improvements were detected in their comorbidity profiles. “Notably, the frequency of major cardiovascular disease (MI, CHF, CVA) was the same as in the controls, and overall, the frequency of diseases coded as cardiovascular was slightly increased,” they wrote.

The fact that some factors could not be measured, including the type and severity of psoriasis, response to treatment, smoking history, and alcohol intake, was a study limitation, they noted.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the analysis, said the study confirms prior work indicating that having psoriasis is a predictor of mortality. In addition, “there is a strong healthy user affect among patients who take and stay on biologics for psoriasis,” he told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

Among patients with psoriasis, the risk of mortality was strongly associated with hepatic injury, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric affective disorders, but was reduced among those who received systemic therapy with biologics, researchers from Canada report.

Those are key findings from a large retrospective registry study of patients with psoriasis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting approximately 3% of the western populations, bears a higher risk of mortality compared to healthy individuals, possibly by inducing systemic inflammation associated with numerous comorbidities, especially cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and others,” wrote corresponding author Robert Gniadecki, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues. “It has been argued that the use of systemic immunomodulatory agents quenches systemic inflammation and potentially improves patient survival. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited.”

To investigate the impact of comorbidities and systemic therapies on all-cause mortality in psoriasis, the researchers used the Alberta Health Services Data Repository of Reporting database from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2019, which represents a population base of 4.47 million individuals. They extracted data on 18,618 psoriasis cases and 55,854 controls, stratified cases according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a surrogate measure for comorbidity burden, and by the type of therapy received, and conducted statistical analyses including Cox proportional hazards regression to determine absolute hazard ratios representing relative effects of specific demographic and comorbidity factors on mortality within groups.

The median age in both cohorts was 48 years, and 51% were male. The researchers observed that mortality in the psoriasis cohort was significantly higher than in the controls (5.7% vs. 3.8%, respectively; P < .05), with a median age at the time of death of 72 vs. 74.4 years.

The CCI and comorbidities strongly predicted mortality, especially drug-induced liver injury (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78), bipolar disorder and suicidal ideation (HR, 1.24-1.58), and major cardiovascular diseases, which included myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) (HR, 1.2-1.4).

Among patients in the psoriasis cohort, survival of those treated with biologic agents was higher than in controls, even after matching for CCI (3.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively, P < .05). “These patients also exhibit reduced overall mortality compared to those treated with methotrexate or topical agents,” Dr. Gniadecki and colleagues wrote. “There was no difference in mortality between methotrexate patients and the topical therapy patients, but any of those treatment groups had superior survival compared to the no-treatment cohort.”

They added that despite better survival among patients treated with biologic agents, no significant improvements were detected in their comorbidity profiles. “Notably, the frequency of major cardiovascular disease (MI, CHF, CVA) was the same as in the controls, and overall, the frequency of diseases coded as cardiovascular was slightly increased,” they wrote.

The fact that some factors could not be measured, including the type and severity of psoriasis, response to treatment, smoking history, and alcohol intake, was a study limitation, they noted.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the analysis, said the study confirms prior work indicating that having psoriasis is a predictor of mortality. In addition, “there is a strong healthy user affect among patients who take and stay on biologics for psoriasis,” he told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

Among patients with psoriasis, the risk of mortality was strongly associated with hepatic injury, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric affective disorders, but was reduced among those who received systemic therapy with biologics, researchers from Canada report.

Those are key findings from a large retrospective registry study of patients with psoriasis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting approximately 3% of the western populations, bears a higher risk of mortality compared to healthy individuals, possibly by inducing systemic inflammation associated with numerous comorbidities, especially cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, and others,” wrote corresponding author Robert Gniadecki, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Alberta, Canada, and colleagues. “It has been argued that the use of systemic immunomodulatory agents quenches systemic inflammation and potentially improves patient survival. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited.”

To investigate the impact of comorbidities and systemic therapies on all-cause mortality in psoriasis, the researchers used the Alberta Health Services Data Repository of Reporting database from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2019, which represents a population base of 4.47 million individuals. They extracted data on 18,618 psoriasis cases and 55,854 controls, stratified cases according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a surrogate measure for comorbidity burden, and by the type of therapy received, and conducted statistical analyses including Cox proportional hazards regression to determine absolute hazard ratios representing relative effects of specific demographic and comorbidity factors on mortality within groups.

The median age in both cohorts was 48 years, and 51% were male. The researchers observed that mortality in the psoriasis cohort was significantly higher than in the controls (5.7% vs. 3.8%, respectively; P < .05), with a median age at the time of death of 72 vs. 74.4 years.

The CCI and comorbidities strongly predicted mortality, especially drug-induced liver injury (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78), bipolar disorder and suicidal ideation (HR, 1.24-1.58), and major cardiovascular diseases, which included myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cerebrovascular disease (CVA) (HR, 1.2-1.4).

Among patients in the psoriasis cohort, survival of those treated with biologic agents was higher than in controls, even after matching for CCI (3.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively, P < .05). “These patients also exhibit reduced overall mortality compared to those treated with methotrexate or topical agents,” Dr. Gniadecki and colleagues wrote. “There was no difference in mortality between methotrexate patients and the topical therapy patients, but any of those treatment groups had superior survival compared to the no-treatment cohort.”

They added that despite better survival among patients treated with biologic agents, no significant improvements were detected in their comorbidity profiles. “Notably, the frequency of major cardiovascular disease (MI, CHF, CVA) was the same as in the controls, and overall, the frequency of diseases coded as cardiovascular was slightly increased,” they wrote.

The fact that some factors could not be measured, including the type and severity of psoriasis, response to treatment, smoking history, and alcohol intake, was a study limitation, they noted.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the analysis, said the study confirms prior work indicating that having psoriasis is a predictor of mortality. In addition, “there is a strong healthy user affect among patients who take and stay on biologics for psoriasis,” he told this news organization.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

Women may gain greater health benefits from regular physical activity at equivalent or lower doses of activity, compared with men, according to data from more than 400,000 US adults. 

Over two decades, with any regular physical activity, all-cause mortality risk was reduced by 24% in women vs 15% in men, and cardiovascular mortality risk was reduced by 36% and 14%, respectively, compared with inactivity, researchers found. 

Participating in strength training exercises (vs not) was associated with a reduced risk for all-cause death of 19% in women and 11% men and reductions in cardiovascular death of 30% and 11%, respectively.

“Women have historically and statistically lagged behind men in engaging in meaningful exercise,” co–lead author Martha Gulati, MD, with the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a statement. “The beauty of this study is learning that women can get more out of each minute of moderate to vigorous activity than men do. It’s an incentivizing notion that we hope women will take to heart.”

The study was published online February 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 
 

Sex-Specific Exercise Advice? 

The findings are based on leisure-time physical activity data collected over roughly 20 years via the National Health Interview Survey for 412,413 US adults aged 27-61 years. During roughly 4.9 million person-years of follow-up, there were 39,935 all-cause deaths and 11,670 cardiovascular deaths.

Both men and women achieved a peak survival benefit at 300 minutes of weekly moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity. But the mortality reduction was substantially greater in women than in men for the same amount of regular exercise (24% vs 18%). 

Similarly, for any given dose of physical activity leading up to 300 minutes per week, women derived proportionately greater survival benefits than did men, the authors reported. 

“Importantly, the greater magnitude of physical activity-related survival benefit in women than men was consistently found across varied measures and types of physical activity including frequency, duration per session, and intensity of aerobic physical activity, as well as frequency of muscle strengthening activities,” they wrote. 

They say multiple factors, including variations in anatomy and physiology, may account for the differences in outcomes between men and women. For example, compared with men, women may use more respiratory, metabolic, and strength demands to conduct the same movement and in turn, reap greater health benefits.

The study also showed only 33% of women and 43% of men regularly engaged in aerobic physical activity, whereas only 20% of women and 28% of men completed a weekly strength training session.

“We hope this study will help everyone, especially women, understand they are poised to gain tremendous benefits from exercise,” senior author Susan Cheng, MD, with the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a statement.

In an accompanying editorial, Wael A. Jaber, MD, and Erika Hutt, MD, from Cleveland Clinic Ohio, wrote that this analysis “brings us one step farther in gaining insights into the role and influence of physiological responses to exercise with a sex-specific lens.” 

The study is “well designed and adds important information to the body of literature that can potentially close the gender gap and optimize sex-specific physical activity recommendations by policy makers and societal guidelines,” they wrote. 

“This study emphasizes that there is no singular approach for exercise. A person’s physical activity needs and goals may change based on their age, health status, and schedule — but the value of any type of exercise is irrefutable,” Eric J. Shiroma, ScD, with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in a statement. 

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and editorial writers have declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women may gain greater health benefits from regular physical activity at equivalent or lower doses of activity, compared with men, according to data from more than 400,000 US adults. 

Over two decades, with any regular physical activity, all-cause mortality risk was reduced by 24% in women vs 15% in men, and cardiovascular mortality risk was reduced by 36% and 14%, respectively, compared with inactivity, researchers found. 

Participating in strength training exercises (vs not) was associated with a reduced risk for all-cause death of 19% in women and 11% men and reductions in cardiovascular death of 30% and 11%, respectively.

“Women have historically and statistically lagged behind men in engaging in meaningful exercise,” co–lead author Martha Gulati, MD, with the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a statement. “The beauty of this study is learning that women can get more out of each minute of moderate to vigorous activity than men do. It’s an incentivizing notion that we hope women will take to heart.”

The study was published online February 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 
 

Sex-Specific Exercise Advice? 

The findings are based on leisure-time physical activity data collected over roughly 20 years via the National Health Interview Survey for 412,413 US adults aged 27-61 years. During roughly 4.9 million person-years of follow-up, there were 39,935 all-cause deaths and 11,670 cardiovascular deaths.

Both men and women achieved a peak survival benefit at 300 minutes of weekly moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity. But the mortality reduction was substantially greater in women than in men for the same amount of regular exercise (24% vs 18%). 

Similarly, for any given dose of physical activity leading up to 300 minutes per week, women derived proportionately greater survival benefits than did men, the authors reported. 

“Importantly, the greater magnitude of physical activity-related survival benefit in women than men was consistently found across varied measures and types of physical activity including frequency, duration per session, and intensity of aerobic physical activity, as well as frequency of muscle strengthening activities,” they wrote. 

They say multiple factors, including variations in anatomy and physiology, may account for the differences in outcomes between men and women. For example, compared with men, women may use more respiratory, metabolic, and strength demands to conduct the same movement and in turn, reap greater health benefits.

The study also showed only 33% of women and 43% of men regularly engaged in aerobic physical activity, whereas only 20% of women and 28% of men completed a weekly strength training session.

“We hope this study will help everyone, especially women, understand they are poised to gain tremendous benefits from exercise,” senior author Susan Cheng, MD, with the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a statement.

In an accompanying editorial, Wael A. Jaber, MD, and Erika Hutt, MD, from Cleveland Clinic Ohio, wrote that this analysis “brings us one step farther in gaining insights into the role and influence of physiological responses to exercise with a sex-specific lens.” 

The study is “well designed and adds important information to the body of literature that can potentially close the gender gap and optimize sex-specific physical activity recommendations by policy makers and societal guidelines,” they wrote. 

“This study emphasizes that there is no singular approach for exercise. A person’s physical activity needs and goals may change based on their age, health status, and schedule — but the value of any type of exercise is irrefutable,” Eric J. Shiroma, ScD, with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in a statement. 

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and editorial writers have declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women may gain greater health benefits from regular physical activity at equivalent or lower doses of activity, compared with men, according to data from more than 400,000 US adults. 

Over two decades, with any regular physical activity, all-cause mortality risk was reduced by 24% in women vs 15% in men, and cardiovascular mortality risk was reduced by 36% and 14%, respectively, compared with inactivity, researchers found. 

Participating in strength training exercises (vs not) was associated with a reduced risk for all-cause death of 19% in women and 11% men and reductions in cardiovascular death of 30% and 11%, respectively.

“Women have historically and statistically lagged behind men in engaging in meaningful exercise,” co–lead author Martha Gulati, MD, with the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a statement. “The beauty of this study is learning that women can get more out of each minute of moderate to vigorous activity than men do. It’s an incentivizing notion that we hope women will take to heart.”

The study was published online February 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 
 

Sex-Specific Exercise Advice? 

The findings are based on leisure-time physical activity data collected over roughly 20 years via the National Health Interview Survey for 412,413 US adults aged 27-61 years. During roughly 4.9 million person-years of follow-up, there were 39,935 all-cause deaths and 11,670 cardiovascular deaths.

Both men and women achieved a peak survival benefit at 300 minutes of weekly moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity. But the mortality reduction was substantially greater in women than in men for the same amount of regular exercise (24% vs 18%). 

Similarly, for any given dose of physical activity leading up to 300 minutes per week, women derived proportionately greater survival benefits than did men, the authors reported. 

“Importantly, the greater magnitude of physical activity-related survival benefit in women than men was consistently found across varied measures and types of physical activity including frequency, duration per session, and intensity of aerobic physical activity, as well as frequency of muscle strengthening activities,” they wrote. 

They say multiple factors, including variations in anatomy and physiology, may account for the differences in outcomes between men and women. For example, compared with men, women may use more respiratory, metabolic, and strength demands to conduct the same movement and in turn, reap greater health benefits.

The study also showed only 33% of women and 43% of men regularly engaged in aerobic physical activity, whereas only 20% of women and 28% of men completed a weekly strength training session.

“We hope this study will help everyone, especially women, understand they are poised to gain tremendous benefits from exercise,” senior author Susan Cheng, MD, with the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a statement.

In an accompanying editorial, Wael A. Jaber, MD, and Erika Hutt, MD, from Cleveland Clinic Ohio, wrote that this analysis “brings us one step farther in gaining insights into the role and influence of physiological responses to exercise with a sex-specific lens.” 

The study is “well designed and adds important information to the body of literature that can potentially close the gender gap and optimize sex-specific physical activity recommendations by policy makers and societal guidelines,” they wrote. 

“This study emphasizes that there is no singular approach for exercise. A person’s physical activity needs and goals may change based on their age, health status, and schedule — but the value of any type of exercise is irrefutable,” Eric J. Shiroma, ScD, with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in a statement. 

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and editorial writers have declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.