Federal Practitioner

Just 3 weeks into the 2022-2023 flu season, the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Influenza Division suggest that the flu and respiratory syncytial virus are more than making up for the recent decline in COVID activity.

Outpatient visits for influenzalike illness (ILI), which includes influenza, SARS-CoV-2, and RSV, were higher after 3 weeks than for any of the previous five flu seasons: 3.3% of visits reported through the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network involved ILI as of Oct. 22. The highest comparable rate in the previous 5 years was the 1.9% recorded in late October of 2021, shortly after the definition of ILI was changed to also include illnesses other than influenza.

This season’s higher flu activity is in contrast to the previous two, which were unusually mild. The change, however, is not unexpected, as William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert and professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, recently told CNN.

“Here we are in the middle of October – not the middle of November – we’re already seeing scattered influenza cases, even hospitalized influenza cases, around the country,” he said. “So we know that this virus is now spreading out in the community already. It’s gathering speed already. It looks to me to be about a month early.”

One indication of the mildness of the previous two flu seasons was the number of deaths, both pediatric and overall. Influenza-associated pediatric deaths had averaged about 110 per season over the previous eight seasons, compared with just 1 for 2020-2021 and 43 in 2021-2022. Overall flu deaths never reached 1% of all weekly deaths for either season, well below baseline levels for the flu, which range from 5.5% to 6.8%, CDC data show.
 

Other indicators of early severity

This season’s early rise in viral activity also can be seen in hospitalizations. The cumulative rate of flu-related admissions was 1.5 per 100,000 population as of Oct. 22, higher than the rate observed in the comparable week of previous seasons going back to 2010-2011, according to the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

A look at state reports of ILI outpatient visit rates shows that the District of Columbia and South Carolina are already in the very high range of the CDC’s severity scale, while 11 states are in the high range. Again going back to 2010-2011, no jurisdiction has ever been in the very high range this early in the season, based on data from the Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network.

Just 3 weeks into the 2022-2023 flu season, the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Influenza Division suggest that the flu and respiratory syncytial virus are more than making up for the recent decline in COVID activity.

Outpatient visits for influenzalike illness (ILI), which includes influenza, SARS-CoV-2, and RSV, were higher after 3 weeks than for any of the previous five flu seasons: 3.3% of visits reported through the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network involved ILI as of Oct. 22. The highest comparable rate in the previous 5 years was the 1.9% recorded in late October of 2021, shortly after the definition of ILI was changed to also include illnesses other than influenza.

This season’s higher flu activity is in contrast to the previous two, which were unusually mild. The change, however, is not unexpected, as William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert and professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, recently told CNN.

“Here we are in the middle of October – not the middle of November – we’re already seeing scattered influenza cases, even hospitalized influenza cases, around the country,” he said. “So we know that this virus is now spreading out in the community already. It’s gathering speed already. It looks to me to be about a month early.”

One indication of the mildness of the previous two flu seasons was the number of deaths, both pediatric and overall. Influenza-associated pediatric deaths had averaged about 110 per season over the previous eight seasons, compared with just 1 for 2020-2021 and 43 in 2021-2022. Overall flu deaths never reached 1% of all weekly deaths for either season, well below baseline levels for the flu, which range from 5.5% to 6.8%, CDC data show.
 

Other indicators of early severity

This season’s early rise in viral activity also can be seen in hospitalizations. The cumulative rate of flu-related admissions was 1.5 per 100,000 population as of Oct. 22, higher than the rate observed in the comparable week of previous seasons going back to 2010-2011, according to the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

A look at state reports of ILI outpatient visit rates shows that the District of Columbia and South Carolina are already in the very high range of the CDC’s severity scale, while 11 states are in the high range. Again going back to 2010-2011, no jurisdiction has ever been in the very high range this early in the season, based on data from the Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network.

Just 3 weeks into the 2022-2023 flu season, the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Influenza Division suggest that the flu and respiratory syncytial virus are more than making up for the recent decline in COVID activity.

Outpatient visits for influenzalike illness (ILI), which includes influenza, SARS-CoV-2, and RSV, were higher after 3 weeks than for any of the previous five flu seasons: 3.3% of visits reported through the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network involved ILI as of Oct. 22. The highest comparable rate in the previous 5 years was the 1.9% recorded in late October of 2021, shortly after the definition of ILI was changed to also include illnesses other than influenza.

This season’s higher flu activity is in contrast to the previous two, which were unusually mild. The change, however, is not unexpected, as William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert and professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, recently told CNN.

“Here we are in the middle of October – not the middle of November – we’re already seeing scattered influenza cases, even hospitalized influenza cases, around the country,” he said. “So we know that this virus is now spreading out in the community already. It’s gathering speed already. It looks to me to be about a month early.”

One indication of the mildness of the previous two flu seasons was the number of deaths, both pediatric and overall. Influenza-associated pediatric deaths had averaged about 110 per season over the previous eight seasons, compared with just 1 for 2020-2021 and 43 in 2021-2022. Overall flu deaths never reached 1% of all weekly deaths for either season, well below baseline levels for the flu, which range from 5.5% to 6.8%, CDC data show.
 

Other indicators of early severity

This season’s early rise in viral activity also can be seen in hospitalizations. The cumulative rate of flu-related admissions was 1.5 per 100,000 population as of Oct. 22, higher than the rate observed in the comparable week of previous seasons going back to 2010-2011, according to the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

A look at state reports of ILI outpatient visit rates shows that the District of Columbia and South Carolina are already in the very high range of the CDC’s severity scale, while 11 states are in the high range. Again going back to 2010-2011, no jurisdiction has ever been in the very high range this early in the season, based on data from the Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network.

Adults with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) – the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) – but most don’t undergo recommended screening, new research shows.

Jennifer Kolb, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues surveyed 472 adults with chronic GERD who qualify for BE screening and had a recent visit with their primary care provider.

In this diverse population of people at risk for BE and EAC, only 13% had ever been advised to undergo endoscopy to screen for BE and only 5% actually had a prior screening, the study notes.

“These results make it clear that screening is rarely done,” Dr. Kolb told this news organization.

The results of the survey are published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Concern high, understanding low

Esophageal cancer and BE have increased among middle-aged adults over roughly the past 5 years, and this increase is not because of better or more frequent screening, as reported previously by this news organization.

In fact, the majority of patients who develop EAC do not have a prior diagnosis of BE, which highlights the failure of current BE screening practices, Dr. Kolb and colleagues point out.

Professional gastroenterology society guidelines recommend screening for BE using upper endoscopy for at-risk individuals, which includes those with chronic GERD, along with other risk factors such as age older than 50 years, male sex, white race, smoking, obesity, and family history of BE or EAC.

In the current survey, most individuals said early detection of BE/EAC is important and leads to better outcomes, but most had poor overall knowledge of risk factors and indications for screening.

Only about two-thirds of respondents correctly identified BE risk factors, and only about 20% believed BE screening was necessary with GERD, the researchers note.

Roughly two-thirds of individuals wanted to prioritize BE screening and felt that getting an upper endoscopy would ease their concern.

Yet, 40% had no prior esophagogastroduodenoscopy. These individuals were less knowledgeable about BE/EAC risk and screening recommendations and identified more barriers to completing endoscopy.

“While minorities were most concerned about developing Barrett’s esophagus and cancer, they reported more barriers to screening compared to White participants,” Dr. Kolb said.
 

Addressing knowledge gaps

The primary care clinician is often the first line for patients with symptomatic acid reflux and the gateway for preventive cancer screening.

Yet, research has shown that primary care clinicians often have trouble identifying who should be screened for BE, and competing clinical issues make it challenging to implement BE screening.

“As gastroenterologists, we must partner with our primary care colleagues to help increase awareness of this lethal disease and improve recognition of risk factors so that eligible patients can be identified and referred for screening,” Dr. Kolb said.

Reached for comment, Seth Gross, MD, clinical chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University Langone Health, said the results “shed light on the fact that patients with GERD don’t have the knowledge of when they should get medical attention and possibly endoscopy.”

“We may need to do a better job of educating our colleagues and patients to know when to seek specialists to potentially get an endoscopy,” Dr. Gross said.

About 90% of esophageal cancers are diagnosed outside of surveillance programs, noted Prasad G. Iyer, MD, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Patients didn’t even know that they had Barrett’s [esophagus], so they were never under surveillance. They only come to attention after they have trouble with food sticking, and they can’t swallow solid food,” said Dr. Iyer, who wasn’t involved in the survey.

“Unfortunately, there are just so many cancers and so many issues that primary care providers have to deal with that I think this may not be getting the attention it deserves,” he said.

Access to endoscopy is also likely a barrier, Dr. Iyer noted.

“The waiting list may be several months, and I think providers may focus on other things,” he said.
 

Less-invasive screening options

Fear of endoscopy may be another issue.

In their survey, Dr. Kolb and colleagues found that 20% of respondents reported fear of discomfort with endoscopy as a barrier to completing screening.

But less-invasive screening options are increasingly available or in development.

This includes Cytosponge, a swallowable capsule containing a compressed sponge attached to a string. When withdrawn, the sponge contains esophageal cytology samples that can be used to identify biomarkers for BE.

In a guideline released last spring, the American College of Gastroenterology endorsed Cytosponge as a nonendoscopic BE screening modality, as published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The strength of the recommendation is conditional, but it’s the first time where [the ACG] is saying that this may be an option for people,” Dr. Gross said.

This research was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Kolb, Dr. Gross, and Dr. Iyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) – the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) – but most don’t undergo recommended screening, new research shows.

Jennifer Kolb, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues surveyed 472 adults with chronic GERD who qualify for BE screening and had a recent visit with their primary care provider.

In this diverse population of people at risk for BE and EAC, only 13% had ever been advised to undergo endoscopy to screen for BE and only 5% actually had a prior screening, the study notes.

“These results make it clear that screening is rarely done,” Dr. Kolb told this news organization.

The results of the survey are published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Concern high, understanding low

Esophageal cancer and BE have increased among middle-aged adults over roughly the past 5 years, and this increase is not because of better or more frequent screening, as reported previously by this news organization.

In fact, the majority of patients who develop EAC do not have a prior diagnosis of BE, which highlights the failure of current BE screening practices, Dr. Kolb and colleagues point out.

Professional gastroenterology society guidelines recommend screening for BE using upper endoscopy for at-risk individuals, which includes those with chronic GERD, along with other risk factors such as age older than 50 years, male sex, white race, smoking, obesity, and family history of BE or EAC.

In the current survey, most individuals said early detection of BE/EAC is important and leads to better outcomes, but most had poor overall knowledge of risk factors and indications for screening.

Only about two-thirds of respondents correctly identified BE risk factors, and only about 20% believed BE screening was necessary with GERD, the researchers note.

Roughly two-thirds of individuals wanted to prioritize BE screening and felt that getting an upper endoscopy would ease their concern.

Yet, 40% had no prior esophagogastroduodenoscopy. These individuals were less knowledgeable about BE/EAC risk and screening recommendations and identified more barriers to completing endoscopy.

“While minorities were most concerned about developing Barrett’s esophagus and cancer, they reported more barriers to screening compared to White participants,” Dr. Kolb said.
 

Addressing knowledge gaps

The primary care clinician is often the first line for patients with symptomatic acid reflux and the gateway for preventive cancer screening.

Yet, research has shown that primary care clinicians often have trouble identifying who should be screened for BE, and competing clinical issues make it challenging to implement BE screening.

“As gastroenterologists, we must partner with our primary care colleagues to help increase awareness of this lethal disease and improve recognition of risk factors so that eligible patients can be identified and referred for screening,” Dr. Kolb said.

Reached for comment, Seth Gross, MD, clinical chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University Langone Health, said the results “shed light on the fact that patients with GERD don’t have the knowledge of when they should get medical attention and possibly endoscopy.”

“We may need to do a better job of educating our colleagues and patients to know when to seek specialists to potentially get an endoscopy,” Dr. Gross said.

About 90% of esophageal cancers are diagnosed outside of surveillance programs, noted Prasad G. Iyer, MD, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Patients didn’t even know that they had Barrett’s [esophagus], so they were never under surveillance. They only come to attention after they have trouble with food sticking, and they can’t swallow solid food,” said Dr. Iyer, who wasn’t involved in the survey.

“Unfortunately, there are just so many cancers and so many issues that primary care providers have to deal with that I think this may not be getting the attention it deserves,” he said.

Access to endoscopy is also likely a barrier, Dr. Iyer noted.

“The waiting list may be several months, and I think providers may focus on other things,” he said.
 

Less-invasive screening options

Fear of endoscopy may be another issue.

In their survey, Dr. Kolb and colleagues found that 20% of respondents reported fear of discomfort with endoscopy as a barrier to completing screening.

But less-invasive screening options are increasingly available or in development.

This includes Cytosponge, a swallowable capsule containing a compressed sponge attached to a string. When withdrawn, the sponge contains esophageal cytology samples that can be used to identify biomarkers for BE.

In a guideline released last spring, the American College of Gastroenterology endorsed Cytosponge as a nonendoscopic BE screening modality, as published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The strength of the recommendation is conditional, but it’s the first time where [the ACG] is saying that this may be an option for people,” Dr. Gross said.

This research was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Kolb, Dr. Gross, and Dr. Iyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) – the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) – but most don’t undergo recommended screening, new research shows.

Jennifer Kolb, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues surveyed 472 adults with chronic GERD who qualify for BE screening and had a recent visit with their primary care provider.

In this diverse population of people at risk for BE and EAC, only 13% had ever been advised to undergo endoscopy to screen for BE and only 5% actually had a prior screening, the study notes.

“These results make it clear that screening is rarely done,” Dr. Kolb told this news organization.

The results of the survey are published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Concern high, understanding low

Esophageal cancer and BE have increased among middle-aged adults over roughly the past 5 years, and this increase is not because of better or more frequent screening, as reported previously by this news organization.

In fact, the majority of patients who develop EAC do not have a prior diagnosis of BE, which highlights the failure of current BE screening practices, Dr. Kolb and colleagues point out.

Professional gastroenterology society guidelines recommend screening for BE using upper endoscopy for at-risk individuals, which includes those with chronic GERD, along with other risk factors such as age older than 50 years, male sex, white race, smoking, obesity, and family history of BE or EAC.

In the current survey, most individuals said early detection of BE/EAC is important and leads to better outcomes, but most had poor overall knowledge of risk factors and indications for screening.

Only about two-thirds of respondents correctly identified BE risk factors, and only about 20% believed BE screening was necessary with GERD, the researchers note.

Roughly two-thirds of individuals wanted to prioritize BE screening and felt that getting an upper endoscopy would ease their concern.

Yet, 40% had no prior esophagogastroduodenoscopy. These individuals were less knowledgeable about BE/EAC risk and screening recommendations and identified more barriers to completing endoscopy.

“While minorities were most concerned about developing Barrett’s esophagus and cancer, they reported more barriers to screening compared to White participants,” Dr. Kolb said.
 

Addressing knowledge gaps

The primary care clinician is often the first line for patients with symptomatic acid reflux and the gateway for preventive cancer screening.

Yet, research has shown that primary care clinicians often have trouble identifying who should be screened for BE, and competing clinical issues make it challenging to implement BE screening.

“As gastroenterologists, we must partner with our primary care colleagues to help increase awareness of this lethal disease and improve recognition of risk factors so that eligible patients can be identified and referred for screening,” Dr. Kolb said.

Reached for comment, Seth Gross, MD, clinical chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University Langone Health, said the results “shed light on the fact that patients with GERD don’t have the knowledge of when they should get medical attention and possibly endoscopy.”

“We may need to do a better job of educating our colleagues and patients to know when to seek specialists to potentially get an endoscopy,” Dr. Gross said.

About 90% of esophageal cancers are diagnosed outside of surveillance programs, noted Prasad G. Iyer, MD, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Patients didn’t even know that they had Barrett’s [esophagus], so they were never under surveillance. They only come to attention after they have trouble with food sticking, and they can’t swallow solid food,” said Dr. Iyer, who wasn’t involved in the survey.

“Unfortunately, there are just so many cancers and so many issues that primary care providers have to deal with that I think this may not be getting the attention it deserves,” he said.

Access to endoscopy is also likely a barrier, Dr. Iyer noted.

“The waiting list may be several months, and I think providers may focus on other things,” he said.
 

Less-invasive screening options

Fear of endoscopy may be another issue.

In their survey, Dr. Kolb and colleagues found that 20% of respondents reported fear of discomfort with endoscopy as a barrier to completing screening.

But less-invasive screening options are increasingly available or in development.

This includes Cytosponge, a swallowable capsule containing a compressed sponge attached to a string. When withdrawn, the sponge contains esophageal cytology samples that can be used to identify biomarkers for BE.

In a guideline released last spring, the American College of Gastroenterology endorsed Cytosponge as a nonendoscopic BE screening modality, as published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The strength of the recommendation is conditional, but it’s the first time where [the ACG] is saying that this may be an option for people,” Dr. Gross said.

This research was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Kolb, Dr. Gross, and Dr. Iyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declined to approve bulevirtide, Gilead Sciences’ drug for the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection and compensated liver disease.

In a complete response letter, the FDA voiced concerns over the production and delivery of bulevirtide, an investigational, first-in-class HDV entry-inhibitor that received conditional approved in Europe in 2020.

The FDA did not request new studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bulevirtide.

As reported previously by this news organization, data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable HDV RNA levels and normalized alanine aminotransferase levels.

Chronic HDV infection is the most severe form of viral hepatitis. It is associated with a poor prognosis and high mortality rates.

There are currently no approved treatments for HDV in the United States. Bulevirtide was granted breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designations by the FDA.

Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, chief medical officer, Gilead Sciences, wrote in a news release that the company looks forward to “continuing our active discussions with FDA so that we may bring bulevirtide to people living with HDV in the U.S. as soon as possible.”

This is the second manufacturing-related complete response letter Gilead has received in the past 8 months. In March, the FDA rejected the long-acting HIV drug lenacapavir. The drug was sanctioned in Europe and the United Kingdom in September.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declined to approve bulevirtide, Gilead Sciences’ drug for the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection and compensated liver disease.

In a complete response letter, the FDA voiced concerns over the production and delivery of bulevirtide, an investigational, first-in-class HDV entry-inhibitor that received conditional approved in Europe in 2020.

The FDA did not request new studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bulevirtide.

As reported previously by this news organization, data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable HDV RNA levels and normalized alanine aminotransferase levels.

Chronic HDV infection is the most severe form of viral hepatitis. It is associated with a poor prognosis and high mortality rates.

There are currently no approved treatments for HDV in the United States. Bulevirtide was granted breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designations by the FDA.

Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, chief medical officer, Gilead Sciences, wrote in a news release that the company looks forward to “continuing our active discussions with FDA so that we may bring bulevirtide to people living with HDV in the U.S. as soon as possible.”

This is the second manufacturing-related complete response letter Gilead has received in the past 8 months. In March, the FDA rejected the long-acting HIV drug lenacapavir. The drug was sanctioned in Europe and the United Kingdom in September.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declined to approve bulevirtide, Gilead Sciences’ drug for the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection and compensated liver disease.

In a complete response letter, the FDA voiced concerns over the production and delivery of bulevirtide, an investigational, first-in-class HDV entry-inhibitor that received conditional approved in Europe in 2020.

The FDA did not request new studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bulevirtide.

As reported previously by this news organization, data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable HDV RNA levels and normalized alanine aminotransferase levels.

Chronic HDV infection is the most severe form of viral hepatitis. It is associated with a poor prognosis and high mortality rates.

There are currently no approved treatments for HDV in the United States. Bulevirtide was granted breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designations by the FDA.

Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, chief medical officer, Gilead Sciences, wrote in a news release that the company looks forward to “continuing our active discussions with FDA so that we may bring bulevirtide to people living with HDV in the U.S. as soon as possible.”

This is the second manufacturing-related complete response letter Gilead has received in the past 8 months. In March, the FDA rejected the long-acting HIV drug lenacapavir. The drug was sanctioned in Europe and the United Kingdom in September.

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

VIENNA – Inpatient treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) can lead to brain connectivity increases that are associated with degree of symptom improvement, new research suggests.

In a “repeat” MRI study, adult participants with MDD had significantly lower brain connectivity compared with their healthy peers at baseline – but showed significant improvement at the 6-week follow-up. These improvements were associated with decreases in symptom severity, independent of whether they received electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) or other treatment modalities.

“This means that the brain structure of patients with serious clinical depression is not as fixed as we thought, and we can improve brain structure within a short time frame [of] around 6 weeks,” lead author Jonathan Repple, MD, now professor of predictive psychiatry at the University of Frankfurt, Germany, said in a release.

“This gives hope to patients who believe nothing can change and they have to live with a disease forever because it is ‘set in stone’ in their brain,” he added.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

‘Easily understandable picture’

Dr. Repple said in an interview that the investigators “were surprised to see how plastic” the brain could be.

“I’ve done a lot of imaging studies in the past where we looked at differences in depression vs. healthy controls, and then maybe had tiny effects. But we’ve never seen such a clear and easily understandable picture, where we see a deficit at the beginning and then a significant increase in whatever biomarker we were looking at, that even correlated with how successful the treatment was,” he said.

Dr. Repple noted that “this is the thing everyone is looking for when we’re talking about a biomarker: That we see this exact pattern” – and it is why they are so excited about the results.

However, he cautioned that the study included a “small sample” and the results need to be independently replicated.

“If this can be replicated, this might be a very good target for future intervention studies,” Dr. Repple said.

The investigators noted that altered brain structural connectivity has been implicated before in the pathophysiology of MDD.

However, it is not clear whether these changes are stable over time and indicate a biological predisposition, or are markers of current disease severity and can be altered by effective treatment.

To investigate further, the researchers used gray matter T1-weighted MRI to define nodes in the brain and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)-based tractography to determine connections between the nodes, to create a structural connectome or white matter network.

They performed assessments at baseline and at 6 weeks’ follow-up in 123 participants diagnosed with current MDD and receiving inpatient treatment, and 55 participants who acted as the healthy controls group.

Among the patients with MDD, 56 were treated with ECT and 67 received other antidepressant care, including psychological therapy or medications. Some patients had received all three treatment modalities.
 

Significant interactions

Results showed a significant interaction by group and time between the baseline and 6-week follow-up assessments (P < .05).

This was partly driven by the MDD group having a significantly lower connectivity strength at baseline than the healthy controls group (P < .05).

It was also partly driven by patients showing a significant improvement in connectivity strength between the baseline and follow-up assessments (P < .05), a pattern that was not seen in the nonpatients.

This increase in connectivity strength was associated with a significant decrease in depression symptom severity (P < .05). This was independent of the treatment modality, indicating that it was not linked to the use of ECT.

Dr. Repple acknowledged the relatively short follow-up period of the study, and added that he is not aware of longitudinal studies of the structural connectome with a longer follow-up.

He pointed out that the structural connectivity of the brain decreases with age, but there have been no studies that have assessed patients with depression and “measured the same person again after 2, 4, 6, or 8 years.”

Dr. Repple reported that the investigators will be following up with their participants, “so hopefully in a few years we’ll have more information on that.

“One thing I also need to stress is that, when we’re looking at the MRI brain scans, we see an increase in connectivity strength, but we really can’t say what the molecular mechanisms behind it are,” he said. “This is a black box for us.”
 

Several unanswered questions

Commenting in the release, Eric Ruhe, MD, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said this was a “very interesting and difficult study to perform.”

However, Dr. Ruhe, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization that it is “very difficult to connect the lack of brain connectivity to the patient symptomatology because there is a huge gap between them.”

The problem is that, despite “lots of evidence” that they are effective, “we currently don’t know how antidepressant therapies work” in terms of their underlying mechanisms of action, he said.

“We think that these types of therapies all modulate the plasticity of the brain,” said Dr. Ruhe. “What this study showed is there are changes that you can detect even in 6 weeks,” although they may have been observed even sooner with a shorter follow-up.

He noted that big questions are whether the change is specific to the treatment given, and “can you modulate different brain network dysfunctions with different treatments?”

Moreover, he wondered if a brain scan could indicate which type of treatment should be used. “This is, of course, very new and very challenging, and we don’t know yet, but we should be pursuing this,” Dr. Ruhe said.

Another question is whether or not the brain connectivity changes shown in the study represent a persistent change – “and whether this is a persistent change that is associated with a consistent and persistent relief of depression.

“Again, this is something that needs to be followed up,” said Dr. Ruhe.

No funding was declared. The study authors and Dr. Ruhe report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – Inpatient treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) can lead to brain connectivity increases that are associated with degree of symptom improvement, new research suggests.

In a “repeat” MRI study, adult participants with MDD had significantly lower brain connectivity compared with their healthy peers at baseline – but showed significant improvement at the 6-week follow-up. These improvements were associated with decreases in symptom severity, independent of whether they received electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) or other treatment modalities.

“This means that the brain structure of patients with serious clinical depression is not as fixed as we thought, and we can improve brain structure within a short time frame [of] around 6 weeks,” lead author Jonathan Repple, MD, now professor of predictive psychiatry at the University of Frankfurt, Germany, said in a release.

“This gives hope to patients who believe nothing can change and they have to live with a disease forever because it is ‘set in stone’ in their brain,” he added.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

‘Easily understandable picture’

Dr. Repple said in an interview that the investigators “were surprised to see how plastic” the brain could be.

“I’ve done a lot of imaging studies in the past where we looked at differences in depression vs. healthy controls, and then maybe had tiny effects. But we’ve never seen such a clear and easily understandable picture, where we see a deficit at the beginning and then a significant increase in whatever biomarker we were looking at, that even correlated with how successful the treatment was,” he said.

Dr. Repple noted that “this is the thing everyone is looking for when we’re talking about a biomarker: That we see this exact pattern” – and it is why they are so excited about the results.

However, he cautioned that the study included a “small sample” and the results need to be independently replicated.

“If this can be replicated, this might be a very good target for future intervention studies,” Dr. Repple said.

The investigators noted that altered brain structural connectivity has been implicated before in the pathophysiology of MDD.

However, it is not clear whether these changes are stable over time and indicate a biological predisposition, or are markers of current disease severity and can be altered by effective treatment.

To investigate further, the researchers used gray matter T1-weighted MRI to define nodes in the brain and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)-based tractography to determine connections between the nodes, to create a structural connectome or white matter network.

They performed assessments at baseline and at 6 weeks’ follow-up in 123 participants diagnosed with current MDD and receiving inpatient treatment, and 55 participants who acted as the healthy controls group.

Among the patients with MDD, 56 were treated with ECT and 67 received other antidepressant care, including psychological therapy or medications. Some patients had received all three treatment modalities.
 

Significant interactions

Results showed a significant interaction by group and time between the baseline and 6-week follow-up assessments (P < .05).

This was partly driven by the MDD group having a significantly lower connectivity strength at baseline than the healthy controls group (P < .05).

It was also partly driven by patients showing a significant improvement in connectivity strength between the baseline and follow-up assessments (P < .05), a pattern that was not seen in the nonpatients.

This increase in connectivity strength was associated with a significant decrease in depression symptom severity (P < .05). This was independent of the treatment modality, indicating that it was not linked to the use of ECT.

Dr. Repple acknowledged the relatively short follow-up period of the study, and added that he is not aware of longitudinal studies of the structural connectome with a longer follow-up.

He pointed out that the structural connectivity of the brain decreases with age, but there have been no studies that have assessed patients with depression and “measured the same person again after 2, 4, 6, or 8 years.”

Dr. Repple reported that the investigators will be following up with their participants, “so hopefully in a few years we’ll have more information on that.

“One thing I also need to stress is that, when we’re looking at the MRI brain scans, we see an increase in connectivity strength, but we really can’t say what the molecular mechanisms behind it are,” he said. “This is a black box for us.”
 

Several unanswered questions

Commenting in the release, Eric Ruhe, MD, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said this was a “very interesting and difficult study to perform.”

However, Dr. Ruhe, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization that it is “very difficult to connect the lack of brain connectivity to the patient symptomatology because there is a huge gap between them.”

The problem is that, despite “lots of evidence” that they are effective, “we currently don’t know how antidepressant therapies work” in terms of their underlying mechanisms of action, he said.

“We think that these types of therapies all modulate the plasticity of the brain,” said Dr. Ruhe. “What this study showed is there are changes that you can detect even in 6 weeks,” although they may have been observed even sooner with a shorter follow-up.

He noted that big questions are whether the change is specific to the treatment given, and “can you modulate different brain network dysfunctions with different treatments?”

Moreover, he wondered if a brain scan could indicate which type of treatment should be used. “This is, of course, very new and very challenging, and we don’t know yet, but we should be pursuing this,” Dr. Ruhe said.

Another question is whether or not the brain connectivity changes shown in the study represent a persistent change – “and whether this is a persistent change that is associated with a consistent and persistent relief of depression.

“Again, this is something that needs to be followed up,” said Dr. Ruhe.

No funding was declared. The study authors and Dr. Ruhe report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – Inpatient treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) can lead to brain connectivity increases that are associated with degree of symptom improvement, new research suggests.

In a “repeat” MRI study, adult participants with MDD had significantly lower brain connectivity compared with their healthy peers at baseline – but showed significant improvement at the 6-week follow-up. These improvements were associated with decreases in symptom severity, independent of whether they received electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) or other treatment modalities.

“This means that the brain structure of patients with serious clinical depression is not as fixed as we thought, and we can improve brain structure within a short time frame [of] around 6 weeks,” lead author Jonathan Repple, MD, now professor of predictive psychiatry at the University of Frankfurt, Germany, said in a release.

“This gives hope to patients who believe nothing can change and they have to live with a disease forever because it is ‘set in stone’ in their brain,” he added.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

‘Easily understandable picture’

Dr. Repple said in an interview that the investigators “were surprised to see how plastic” the brain could be.

“I’ve done a lot of imaging studies in the past where we looked at differences in depression vs. healthy controls, and then maybe had tiny effects. But we’ve never seen such a clear and easily understandable picture, where we see a deficit at the beginning and then a significant increase in whatever biomarker we were looking at, that even correlated with how successful the treatment was,” he said.

Dr. Repple noted that “this is the thing everyone is looking for when we’re talking about a biomarker: That we see this exact pattern” – and it is why they are so excited about the results.

However, he cautioned that the study included a “small sample” and the results need to be independently replicated.

“If this can be replicated, this might be a very good target for future intervention studies,” Dr. Repple said.

The investigators noted that altered brain structural connectivity has been implicated before in the pathophysiology of MDD.

However, it is not clear whether these changes are stable over time and indicate a biological predisposition, or are markers of current disease severity and can be altered by effective treatment.

To investigate further, the researchers used gray matter T1-weighted MRI to define nodes in the brain and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)-based tractography to determine connections between the nodes, to create a structural connectome or white matter network.

They performed assessments at baseline and at 6 weeks’ follow-up in 123 participants diagnosed with current MDD and receiving inpatient treatment, and 55 participants who acted as the healthy controls group.

Among the patients with MDD, 56 were treated with ECT and 67 received other antidepressant care, including psychological therapy or medications. Some patients had received all three treatment modalities.
 

Significant interactions

Results showed a significant interaction by group and time between the baseline and 6-week follow-up assessments (P < .05).

This was partly driven by the MDD group having a significantly lower connectivity strength at baseline than the healthy controls group (P < .05).

It was also partly driven by patients showing a significant improvement in connectivity strength between the baseline and follow-up assessments (P < .05), a pattern that was not seen in the nonpatients.

This increase in connectivity strength was associated with a significant decrease in depression symptom severity (P < .05). This was independent of the treatment modality, indicating that it was not linked to the use of ECT.

Dr. Repple acknowledged the relatively short follow-up period of the study, and added that he is not aware of longitudinal studies of the structural connectome with a longer follow-up.

He pointed out that the structural connectivity of the brain decreases with age, but there have been no studies that have assessed patients with depression and “measured the same person again after 2, 4, 6, or 8 years.”

Dr. Repple reported that the investigators will be following up with their participants, “so hopefully in a few years we’ll have more information on that.

“One thing I also need to stress is that, when we’re looking at the MRI brain scans, we see an increase in connectivity strength, but we really can’t say what the molecular mechanisms behind it are,” he said. “This is a black box for us.”
 

Several unanswered questions

Commenting in the release, Eric Ruhe, MD, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said this was a “very interesting and difficult study to perform.”

However, Dr. Ruhe, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization that it is “very difficult to connect the lack of brain connectivity to the patient symptomatology because there is a huge gap between them.”

The problem is that, despite “lots of evidence” that they are effective, “we currently don’t know how antidepressant therapies work” in terms of their underlying mechanisms of action, he said.

“We think that these types of therapies all modulate the plasticity of the brain,” said Dr. Ruhe. “What this study showed is there are changes that you can detect even in 6 weeks,” although they may have been observed even sooner with a shorter follow-up.

He noted that big questions are whether the change is specific to the treatment given, and “can you modulate different brain network dysfunctions with different treatments?”

Moreover, he wondered if a brain scan could indicate which type of treatment should be used. “This is, of course, very new and very challenging, and we don’t know yet, but we should be pursuing this,” Dr. Ruhe said.

Another question is whether or not the brain connectivity changes shown in the study represent a persistent change – “and whether this is a persistent change that is associated with a consistent and persistent relief of depression.

“Again, this is something that needs to be followed up,” said Dr. Ruhe.

No funding was declared. The study authors and Dr. Ruhe report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Performing moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) in the afternoon or evening may improve blood glucose control to a greater extent than exercising evenly throughout the day, new research suggests.

The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m² in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.

“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”

Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
 

Is it down to circadian rhythm?

“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.

Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”

But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”

Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”

Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
 

Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat

The findings were published online in Diabetologia.

The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.

Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.

However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.

After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.

Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.

Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.

“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.

Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”

The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.

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

Performing moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) in the afternoon or evening may improve blood glucose control to a greater extent than exercising evenly throughout the day, new research suggests.

The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m² in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.

“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”

Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
 

Is it down to circadian rhythm?

“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.

Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”

But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”

Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”

Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
 

Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat

The findings were published online in Diabetologia.

The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.

Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.

However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.

After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.

Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.

Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.

“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.

Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”

The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.

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

Performing moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) in the afternoon or evening may improve blood glucose control to a greater extent than exercising evenly throughout the day, new research suggests.

The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m² in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.

“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”

Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
 

Is it down to circadian rhythm?

“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.

Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”

But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”

Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”

Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
 

Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat

The findings were published online in Diabetologia.

The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.

Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.

However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.

After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.

Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.

Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.

“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.

Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”

The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 infection disrupts the normal mix of gut bacteria, allowing harmful bacteria to enter the bloodstream and raising the risk for potentially life-threatening secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs), new research suggests.

“Collectively, these results reveal an unappreciated link between SARS-CoV-2 infection, gut microbiome dysbiosis, and a severe complication of COVID-19, BSIs,” the study team reported in Nature Communications.

“Our findings suggest that coronavirus infection directly interferes with the healthy balance of microbes in the gut, further endangering patients in the process,” microbiologist and co–senior author Ken Cadwell, PhD, New York University, added in a news release. “Now that we have uncovered the source of this bacterial imbalance, physicians can better identify those coronavirus patients most at risk of a secondary bloodstream infection.”

In a mouse model, the researchers first demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 infection alone induces gut microbiome dysbiosis and gut epithelial cell alterations, which correlate with markers of gut barrier permeability.

Next, they analyzed the bacterial composition of stool samples from 96 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in 2020 in New York and New Haven, Conn.

In line with their observations in mice, they found that the SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with “severe microbiome injury,” characterized by the loss of gut microbiome diversity.

They also observed an increase in populations of several microbes known to include antibiotic-resistant species. An analysis of stool samples paired with blood cultures found that antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the gut migrated to the bloodstream in 20% of patients.

This migration could be caused by a combination of the immune-compromising effects of the viral infection and the antibiotic-driven depletion of commensal gut microbes, the researchers said.

However, COVID-19 patients are also uniquely exposed to other potential factors predisposing them to bacteremia, including immunosuppressive drugs, long hospital stays, and catheters, the investigators noted. The study is limited in its ability to investigate the individual effects of these factors.

“Our findings support a scenario in which gut-to-blood translocation of microorganisms following microbiome dysbiosis leads to dangerous BSIs during COVID-19, a complication seen in other immunocompromised patients, including patients with cancer, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and in ICU patients receiving probiotics,” the researchers wrote.

Investigating the underlying mechanism behind their observations could help inform “the judicious application of antibiotics and immunosuppressives in patients with respiratory viral infections and increase our resilience to pandemics,” they added.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health, the Yale School of Public Health, and numerous other sources. Dr. Cadwell has received research support from Pfizer, Takeda, Pacific Biosciences, Genentech, and AbbVie; consulted for or received an honoraria from PureTech Health, Genentech, and AbbVie; and is named as an inventor on US patent 10,722,600 and provisional patents 62/935,035 and 63/157,225.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 infection disrupts the normal mix of gut bacteria, allowing harmful bacteria to enter the bloodstream and raising the risk for potentially life-threatening secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs), new research suggests.

“Collectively, these results reveal an unappreciated link between SARS-CoV-2 infection, gut microbiome dysbiosis, and a severe complication of COVID-19, BSIs,” the study team reported in Nature Communications.

“Our findings suggest that coronavirus infection directly interferes with the healthy balance of microbes in the gut, further endangering patients in the process,” microbiologist and co–senior author Ken Cadwell, PhD, New York University, added in a news release. “Now that we have uncovered the source of this bacterial imbalance, physicians can better identify those coronavirus patients most at risk of a secondary bloodstream infection.”

In a mouse model, the researchers first demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 infection alone induces gut microbiome dysbiosis and gut epithelial cell alterations, which correlate with markers of gut barrier permeability.

Next, they analyzed the bacterial composition of stool samples from 96 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in 2020 in New York and New Haven, Conn.

In line with their observations in mice, they found that the SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with “severe microbiome injury,” characterized by the loss of gut microbiome diversity.

They also observed an increase in populations of several microbes known to include antibiotic-resistant species. An analysis of stool samples paired with blood cultures found that antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the gut migrated to the bloodstream in 20% of patients.

This migration could be caused by a combination of the immune-compromising effects of the viral infection and the antibiotic-driven depletion of commensal gut microbes, the researchers said.

However, COVID-19 patients are also uniquely exposed to other potential factors predisposing them to bacteremia, including immunosuppressive drugs, long hospital stays, and catheters, the investigators noted. The study is limited in its ability to investigate the individual effects of these factors.

“Our findings support a scenario in which gut-to-blood translocation of microorganisms following microbiome dysbiosis leads to dangerous BSIs during COVID-19, a complication seen in other immunocompromised patients, including patients with cancer, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and in ICU patients receiving probiotics,” the researchers wrote.

Investigating the underlying mechanism behind their observations could help inform “the judicious application of antibiotics and immunosuppressives in patients with respiratory viral infections and increase our resilience to pandemics,” they added.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health, the Yale School of Public Health, and numerous other sources. Dr. Cadwell has received research support from Pfizer, Takeda, Pacific Biosciences, Genentech, and AbbVie; consulted for or received an honoraria from PureTech Health, Genentech, and AbbVie; and is named as an inventor on US patent 10,722,600 and provisional patents 62/935,035 and 63/157,225.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 infection disrupts the normal mix of gut bacteria, allowing harmful bacteria to enter the bloodstream and raising the risk for potentially life-threatening secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs), new research suggests.

“Collectively, these results reveal an unappreciated link between SARS-CoV-2 infection, gut microbiome dysbiosis, and a severe complication of COVID-19, BSIs,” the study team reported in Nature Communications.

“Our findings suggest that coronavirus infection directly interferes with the healthy balance of microbes in the gut, further endangering patients in the process,” microbiologist and co–senior author Ken Cadwell, PhD, New York University, added in a news release. “Now that we have uncovered the source of this bacterial imbalance, physicians can better identify those coronavirus patients most at risk of a secondary bloodstream infection.”

In a mouse model, the researchers first demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 infection alone induces gut microbiome dysbiosis and gut epithelial cell alterations, which correlate with markers of gut barrier permeability.

Next, they analyzed the bacterial composition of stool samples from 96 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in 2020 in New York and New Haven, Conn.

In line with their observations in mice, they found that the SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with “severe microbiome injury,” characterized by the loss of gut microbiome diversity.

They also observed an increase in populations of several microbes known to include antibiotic-resistant species. An analysis of stool samples paired with blood cultures found that antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the gut migrated to the bloodstream in 20% of patients.

This migration could be caused by a combination of the immune-compromising effects of the viral infection and the antibiotic-driven depletion of commensal gut microbes, the researchers said.

However, COVID-19 patients are also uniquely exposed to other potential factors predisposing them to bacteremia, including immunosuppressive drugs, long hospital stays, and catheters, the investigators noted. The study is limited in its ability to investigate the individual effects of these factors.

“Our findings support a scenario in which gut-to-blood translocation of microorganisms following microbiome dysbiosis leads to dangerous BSIs during COVID-19, a complication seen in other immunocompromised patients, including patients with cancer, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and in ICU patients receiving probiotics,” the researchers wrote.

Investigating the underlying mechanism behind their observations could help inform “the judicious application of antibiotics and immunosuppressives in patients with respiratory viral infections and increase our resilience to pandemics,” they added.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health, the Yale School of Public Health, and numerous other sources. Dr. Cadwell has received research support from Pfizer, Takeda, Pacific Biosciences, Genentech, and AbbVie; consulted for or received an honoraria from PureTech Health, Genentech, and AbbVie; and is named as an inventor on US patent 10,722,600 and provisional patents 62/935,035 and 63/157,225.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals with mental illness appear to have higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) compared with their cisgender counterparts, new research shows.

Although mood disorders, depression, and anxiety were the most common diagnoses in both TGD and cisgender patients, “when we compared the diagnostic profiles [of TGD patients] to those of cisgender patients, we found an increased prevalence of PTSD and BPD,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“What we concluded is that psychiatric programs that wish to treat TGD patients should either have or should develop expertise in treating PTSD and BPD, not just mood and anxiety disorders,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

The study was published online September 26 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

‘Piecemeal literature’

TGD individuals “experience high rates of various forms of psychopathology in general and when compared with cisgender persons,” the investigators note.

They point out that most empirical evidence has relied upon the use of brief, unstructured psychodiagnostic assessment measures and assessment of a “limited constellation of psychiatric symptoms domains,” resulting in a “piecemeal literature wherein each piece of research documents elevations in one – or a few – diagnostic domains.”

Studies pointing to broader psychosocial health variables have often relied upon self-reported measures. In addition, in studies that utilized a structured interview approach, none “used a formal interview procedure to assess psychiatric diagnoses” and most focused only on a “limited number of psychiatric conditions based on self-reports of past diagnosis.”

The goal of the current study was to use semistructured interviews administered by professionals to compare the diagnostic profiles of a samples of TGD and cisgender patients who presented for treatment at a single naturalistic, clinically acute setting – a partial hospital program.

Dr. Zimmerman said that there was an additional motive for conducting the study. “There has been discussion in the field as to whether or not transgender or gender-diverse individuals all have borderline personality disorder, but that hasn’t been our clinical impression.”

Rather, Dr. Zimmerman and colleagues believe TGD people “may have had more difficult childhoods and more difficult adjustments in society because of societal attitudes and have to deal with that stress, whether it be microaggressions or overt bullying and aggression.” The study was designed to investigate this issue.

In addition, studies conducted in primary care programs in individuals seeking gender-affirming surgery have “reported a limited number of psychiatric diagnoses, but we were wondering whether, amongst psychiatric patients specifically, there were differences in diagnostic profiles between transgender and gender-diverse patients and cisgender patients. If so, what might the implications be for providing care for this population?”
 

TGD not synonymous with borderline

To investigate, the researchers administered semistructured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV disorders to 2,212 psychiatric patients (66% cisgender women, 30.8% cisgender men, 3.1% TGD; mean [standard deviation] age 36.7 [14.4] years) presenting to the Rhode Island Hospital Department of Psychiatry Partial Hospital Program between April 2014 and January 2021.

Patients also completed a demographic questionnaire including their assigned sex at birth and their current gender identity.

Most patients (44.9%) were single, followed by 23.5% who were married, 14.1% living in a relationship as if married, 12.0% divorced, 3.6% separated, and 1.9% widowed.

Almost three-quarters of participants (73.2%) identified as White, followed by Hispanic (10.7%), Black (6.7%), “other” or a combination of racial/ethnic backgrounds (6.6%), and Asian (2.7%).

There were no differences between cisgender and TGD groups in terms of race or education, but the TGD patients were significantly younger compared with their cisgender counterparts and were significantly more likely to have never been married.

The average number of psychiatric diagnoses in the sample was 3.05 (± 1.73), with TGD patients having a larger number of psychiatric diagnoses than did their cisgender peers (an average of 3.54 ± 1.88 vs. 3.04 ± 1.72, respectively; t = 2.37; P = .02).

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) were the most common disorders among both cisgender and TGD patients. However, after controlling for age, the researchers found that TGD patients were significantly more likely than were the cisgender patients to be diagnosed with PTSD and BPD (P < .05 for both).

A representative sample?

Commenting on the study, Jack Drescher, MD, distinguished life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical professor of psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, called the findings “interesting” but noted that a limitation of the study is that it included “a patient population with likely more severe psychiatric illness, since they were all day hospital patients.”

The question is whether similar findings would be obtained in a less severely ill population, said Dr. Drescher, who is also a senior consulting analyst for sexuality and gender at Columbia University and was not involved with the study. “The patients in the study may not be representative of the general population, either cisgender or transgender.”

Dr. Drescher was “not surprised” by the finding regarding PTSD because the finding “is consistent with our understanding of the kinds of traumas that transgender people go through in day-to-day life.”

He noted that some people misunderstand the diagnostic criterion in BPD of identity confusion and think that because people with gender dysphoria may be confused about their identity, it means that all people who are transgender have borderline personality disorder, “but that’s not true.”

Dr. Zimmerman agreed. “The vast majority of individuals with BPD do not have a transgender or gender-diverse identity, and TGD should not be equated with BPD,” he said.

No source of study funding was disclosed. Dr. Zimmerman and coauthors and Dr. Drescher report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals with mental illness appear to have higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) compared with their cisgender counterparts, new research shows.

Although mood disorders, depression, and anxiety were the most common diagnoses in both TGD and cisgender patients, “when we compared the diagnostic profiles [of TGD patients] to those of cisgender patients, we found an increased prevalence of PTSD and BPD,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“What we concluded is that psychiatric programs that wish to treat TGD patients should either have or should develop expertise in treating PTSD and BPD, not just mood and anxiety disorders,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

The study was published online September 26 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

‘Piecemeal literature’

TGD individuals “experience high rates of various forms of psychopathology in general and when compared with cisgender persons,” the investigators note.

They point out that most empirical evidence has relied upon the use of brief, unstructured psychodiagnostic assessment measures and assessment of a “limited constellation of psychiatric symptoms domains,” resulting in a “piecemeal literature wherein each piece of research documents elevations in one – or a few – diagnostic domains.”

Studies pointing to broader psychosocial health variables have often relied upon self-reported measures. In addition, in studies that utilized a structured interview approach, none “used a formal interview procedure to assess psychiatric diagnoses” and most focused only on a “limited number of psychiatric conditions based on self-reports of past diagnosis.”

The goal of the current study was to use semistructured interviews administered by professionals to compare the diagnostic profiles of a samples of TGD and cisgender patients who presented for treatment at a single naturalistic, clinically acute setting – a partial hospital program.

Dr. Zimmerman said that there was an additional motive for conducting the study. “There has been discussion in the field as to whether or not transgender or gender-diverse individuals all have borderline personality disorder, but that hasn’t been our clinical impression.”

Rather, Dr. Zimmerman and colleagues believe TGD people “may have had more difficult childhoods and more difficult adjustments in society because of societal attitudes and have to deal with that stress, whether it be microaggressions or overt bullying and aggression.” The study was designed to investigate this issue.

In addition, studies conducted in primary care programs in individuals seeking gender-affirming surgery have “reported a limited number of psychiatric diagnoses, but we were wondering whether, amongst psychiatric patients specifically, there were differences in diagnostic profiles between transgender and gender-diverse patients and cisgender patients. If so, what might the implications be for providing care for this population?”
 

TGD not synonymous with borderline

To investigate, the researchers administered semistructured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV disorders to 2,212 psychiatric patients (66% cisgender women, 30.8% cisgender men, 3.1% TGD; mean [standard deviation] age 36.7 [14.4] years) presenting to the Rhode Island Hospital Department of Psychiatry Partial Hospital Program between April 2014 and January 2021.

Patients also completed a demographic questionnaire including their assigned sex at birth and their current gender identity.

Most patients (44.9%) were single, followed by 23.5% who were married, 14.1% living in a relationship as if married, 12.0% divorced, 3.6% separated, and 1.9% widowed.

Almost three-quarters of participants (73.2%) identified as White, followed by Hispanic (10.7%), Black (6.7%), “other” or a combination of racial/ethnic backgrounds (6.6%), and Asian (2.7%).

There were no differences between cisgender and TGD groups in terms of race or education, but the TGD patients were significantly younger compared with their cisgender counterparts and were significantly more likely to have never been married.

The average number of psychiatric diagnoses in the sample was 3.05 (± 1.73), with TGD patients having a larger number of psychiatric diagnoses than did their cisgender peers (an average of 3.54 ± 1.88 vs. 3.04 ± 1.72, respectively; t = 2.37; P = .02).

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) were the most common disorders among both cisgender and TGD patients. However, after controlling for age, the researchers found that TGD patients were significantly more likely than were the cisgender patients to be diagnosed with PTSD and BPD (P < .05 for both).

A representative sample?

Commenting on the study, Jack Drescher, MD, distinguished life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical professor of psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, called the findings “interesting” but noted that a limitation of the study is that it included “a patient population with likely more severe psychiatric illness, since they were all day hospital patients.”

The question is whether similar findings would be obtained in a less severely ill population, said Dr. Drescher, who is also a senior consulting analyst for sexuality and gender at Columbia University and was not involved with the study. “The patients in the study may not be representative of the general population, either cisgender or transgender.”

Dr. Drescher was “not surprised” by the finding regarding PTSD because the finding “is consistent with our understanding of the kinds of traumas that transgender people go through in day-to-day life.”

He noted that some people misunderstand the diagnostic criterion in BPD of identity confusion and think that because people with gender dysphoria may be confused about their identity, it means that all people who are transgender have borderline personality disorder, “but that’s not true.”

Dr. Zimmerman agreed. “The vast majority of individuals with BPD do not have a transgender or gender-diverse identity, and TGD should not be equated with BPD,” he said.

No source of study funding was disclosed. Dr. Zimmerman and coauthors and Dr. Drescher report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals with mental illness appear to have higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) compared with their cisgender counterparts, new research shows.

Although mood disorders, depression, and anxiety were the most common diagnoses in both TGD and cisgender patients, “when we compared the diagnostic profiles [of TGD patients] to those of cisgender patients, we found an increased prevalence of PTSD and BPD,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“What we concluded is that psychiatric programs that wish to treat TGD patients should either have or should develop expertise in treating PTSD and BPD, not just mood and anxiety disorders,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

The study was published online September 26 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

‘Piecemeal literature’

TGD individuals “experience high rates of various forms of psychopathology in general and when compared with cisgender persons,” the investigators note.

They point out that most empirical evidence has relied upon the use of brief, unstructured psychodiagnostic assessment measures and assessment of a “limited constellation of psychiatric symptoms domains,” resulting in a “piecemeal literature wherein each piece of research documents elevations in one – or a few – diagnostic domains.”

Studies pointing to broader psychosocial health variables have often relied upon self-reported measures. In addition, in studies that utilized a structured interview approach, none “used a formal interview procedure to assess psychiatric diagnoses” and most focused only on a “limited number of psychiatric conditions based on self-reports of past diagnosis.”

The goal of the current study was to use semistructured interviews administered by professionals to compare the diagnostic profiles of a samples of TGD and cisgender patients who presented for treatment at a single naturalistic, clinically acute setting – a partial hospital program.

Dr. Zimmerman said that there was an additional motive for conducting the study. “There has been discussion in the field as to whether or not transgender or gender-diverse individuals all have borderline personality disorder, but that hasn’t been our clinical impression.”

Rather, Dr. Zimmerman and colleagues believe TGD people “may have had more difficult childhoods and more difficult adjustments in society because of societal attitudes and have to deal with that stress, whether it be microaggressions or overt bullying and aggression.” The study was designed to investigate this issue.

In addition, studies conducted in primary care programs in individuals seeking gender-affirming surgery have “reported a limited number of psychiatric diagnoses, but we were wondering whether, amongst psychiatric patients specifically, there were differences in diagnostic profiles between transgender and gender-diverse patients and cisgender patients. If so, what might the implications be for providing care for this population?”
 

TGD not synonymous with borderline

To investigate, the researchers administered semistructured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV disorders to 2,212 psychiatric patients (66% cisgender women, 30.8% cisgender men, 3.1% TGD; mean [standard deviation] age 36.7 [14.4] years) presenting to the Rhode Island Hospital Department of Psychiatry Partial Hospital Program between April 2014 and January 2021.

Patients also completed a demographic questionnaire including their assigned sex at birth and their current gender identity.

Most patients (44.9%) were single, followed by 23.5% who were married, 14.1% living in a relationship as if married, 12.0% divorced, 3.6% separated, and 1.9% widowed.

Almost three-quarters of participants (73.2%) identified as White, followed by Hispanic (10.7%), Black (6.7%), “other” or a combination of racial/ethnic backgrounds (6.6%), and Asian (2.7%).

There were no differences between cisgender and TGD groups in terms of race or education, but the TGD patients were significantly younger compared with their cisgender counterparts and were significantly more likely to have never been married.

The average number of psychiatric diagnoses in the sample was 3.05 (± 1.73), with TGD patients having a larger number of psychiatric diagnoses than did their cisgender peers (an average of 3.54 ± 1.88 vs. 3.04 ± 1.72, respectively; t = 2.37; P = .02).

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) were the most common disorders among both cisgender and TGD patients. However, after controlling for age, the researchers found that TGD patients were significantly more likely than were the cisgender patients to be diagnosed with PTSD and BPD (P < .05 for both).

A representative sample?

Commenting on the study, Jack Drescher, MD, distinguished life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical professor of psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, called the findings “interesting” but noted that a limitation of the study is that it included “a patient population with likely more severe psychiatric illness, since they were all day hospital patients.”

The question is whether similar findings would be obtained in a less severely ill population, said Dr. Drescher, who is also a senior consulting analyst for sexuality and gender at Columbia University and was not involved with the study. “The patients in the study may not be representative of the general population, either cisgender or transgender.”

Dr. Drescher was “not surprised” by the finding regarding PTSD because the finding “is consistent with our understanding of the kinds of traumas that transgender people go through in day-to-day life.”

He noted that some people misunderstand the diagnostic criterion in BPD of identity confusion and think that because people with gender dysphoria may be confused about their identity, it means that all people who are transgender have borderline personality disorder, “but that’s not true.”

Dr. Zimmerman agreed. “The vast majority of individuals with BPD do not have a transgender or gender-diverse identity, and TGD should not be equated with BPD,” he said.

No source of study funding was disclosed. Dr. Zimmerman and coauthors and Dr. Drescher report no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”