Federal Practitioner

SAN DIEGO—Before the pandemic, an estimated one-third of oncologists worldwide suffered a high level of burnout. Cancer physicians face many of the same risk factors as their colleagues—high workloads, lack of autonomy, and no support—along with the added pressure of working in a medical field where patients often die. Then COVID-19 hit, and the burnout crisis got even worse.

This tide can be reversed with a focus on best practices and resilience, a mental health researcher told cancer professionals at the September 2022 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. Assessments, long-term interventions, and communication are all key, said Fay J. Hlubocky, PhD, MA, a clinical health psychologist and ethicist at the University of Chicago.

Even simple actions like taking time for “mindful moments” and checking in with a colleague can make a difference, she said. But institutions must act, she said. “Long-term tailored strategies are incredibly important to promote well-being.”

Hlubocky, who led an American Society of Clinical Oncology committee on burnout prior to the pandemic, noted that statistics about burnout in American medicine and oncology specifically, are grim. In 2017, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that significant numbers of oncologists suffered from high burnout (32%), high psychiatric morbidity (27%), depression (at least 12%), and alcohol misuse (as many as 30%).

The pandemic piled on more stressors. In the second half of 2020, researchers interviewed 25 American oncologists in focus groups and found that their “underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment [and] strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement.”

As one participant put it, “everyone is seeing a lot of death and heartache and social isolation and anger that they’re not used to encountering and in very new and different ways.”

Major contributors to oncologist burnout, Hlubocky said, include moral distress, moral injury, and compassion fatigue. “Moral distress occurs when that individual believes he or she knows the right thing to do, but institutional constraints make it really difficult to do what is right,” Hlubocky said. “The individual is aware of the moral problem, acknowledges and takes moral responsibility, makes some moral judgments, but yet—as a result of these constraints — participates in perceived moral wrongdoing.”

Moral injury refers to the damage that can be caused by moral distress or by witnessing acts that violate morals, such as during military service. Compassion fatigue, meanwhile, is defined by the American Stress Institute as “a low level, chronic clouding of caring and concern for others in your life.”

What can be done? Hlubocky highlighted multiple interventions, such as adjustment of work patterns, cognitive behavioral therapy, and training in mindfulness, relaxation, and communication. One strategy is to adopt multiple in-person interventions simultaneously.

But first it’s crucial for administrators to understand the problem in a specific workplace: “You have to know what’s going on in your organization to intervene on it,” she said. “There are multiple tools that have been validated in other health care fields and can be used on a regular basis over time to measure burnout, satisfaction, and engagement.”

For individuals, other strategies include daily check-ins with colleagues to catch signs of stress, she said, as Toronto oncologists started doing amid the pandemic. The check-ins can include simple questions like: How are you doing? How are you feeling? Are you sleeping, eating and exercising? Do you need help?

As for resilience, Hlubocky said it must grow at the individual level. “We can't rely so much on the organization. We need to develop our personal resilience in order for professional resilience to flourish again, and we have to do a lot to protect ourselves. It’s about focusing on the strength of the individual—that empowerment to rise above adversity, that vitality, that engagement, that self-efficacy. It supports health and enhances coping, and it is the key element of physician and clinician well-being.”

Research into resilience offers guidance about how to achieve it, she said. A 2013 German study of 200 physicians found that the most resilient physicians change their attitudes and behaviors, take time off, set boundaries, spend time with family and friends, and ask colleagues for help. And they gained resilience, the study found, by getting older and becoming more experienced.

Hlubocky pointed to several useful resources for burned-out medical professionals, including mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy and breathing apps: She highlighted Breathe2Relax, Headspace, MoodGYM, Stress Gym, and guided audio files from the University of California at San Diego. And she said ASCO has resources on combatting burnout and promoting well-being.

Hlubocky has no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO—Before the pandemic, an estimated one-third of oncologists worldwide suffered a high level of burnout. Cancer physicians face many of the same risk factors as their colleagues—high workloads, lack of autonomy, and no support—along with the added pressure of working in a medical field where patients often die. Then COVID-19 hit, and the burnout crisis got even worse.

This tide can be reversed with a focus on best practices and resilience, a mental health researcher told cancer professionals at the September 2022 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. Assessments, long-term interventions, and communication are all key, said Fay J. Hlubocky, PhD, MA, a clinical health psychologist and ethicist at the University of Chicago.

Even simple actions like taking time for “mindful moments” and checking in with a colleague can make a difference, she said. But institutions must act, she said. “Long-term tailored strategies are incredibly important to promote well-being.”

Hlubocky, who led an American Society of Clinical Oncology committee on burnout prior to the pandemic, noted that statistics about burnout in American medicine and oncology specifically, are grim. In 2017, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that significant numbers of oncologists suffered from high burnout (32%), high psychiatric morbidity (27%), depression (at least 12%), and alcohol misuse (as many as 30%).

The pandemic piled on more stressors. In the second half of 2020, researchers interviewed 25 American oncologists in focus groups and found that their “underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment [and] strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement.”

As one participant put it, “everyone is seeing a lot of death and heartache and social isolation and anger that they’re not used to encountering and in very new and different ways.”

Major contributors to oncologist burnout, Hlubocky said, include moral distress, moral injury, and compassion fatigue. “Moral distress occurs when that individual believes he or she knows the right thing to do, but institutional constraints make it really difficult to do what is right,” Hlubocky said. “The individual is aware of the moral problem, acknowledges and takes moral responsibility, makes some moral judgments, but yet—as a result of these constraints — participates in perceived moral wrongdoing.”

Moral injury refers to the damage that can be caused by moral distress or by witnessing acts that violate morals, such as during military service. Compassion fatigue, meanwhile, is defined by the American Stress Institute as “a low level, chronic clouding of caring and concern for others in your life.”

What can be done? Hlubocky highlighted multiple interventions, such as adjustment of work patterns, cognitive behavioral therapy, and training in mindfulness, relaxation, and communication. One strategy is to adopt multiple in-person interventions simultaneously.

But first it’s crucial for administrators to understand the problem in a specific workplace: “You have to know what’s going on in your organization to intervene on it,” she said. “There are multiple tools that have been validated in other health care fields and can be used on a regular basis over time to measure burnout, satisfaction, and engagement.”

For individuals, other strategies include daily check-ins with colleagues to catch signs of stress, she said, as Toronto oncologists started doing amid the pandemic. The check-ins can include simple questions like: How are you doing? How are you feeling? Are you sleeping, eating and exercising? Do you need help?

As for resilience, Hlubocky said it must grow at the individual level. “We can't rely so much on the organization. We need to develop our personal resilience in order for professional resilience to flourish again, and we have to do a lot to protect ourselves. It’s about focusing on the strength of the individual—that empowerment to rise above adversity, that vitality, that engagement, that self-efficacy. It supports health and enhances coping, and it is the key element of physician and clinician well-being.”

Research into resilience offers guidance about how to achieve it, she said. A 2013 German study of 200 physicians found that the most resilient physicians change their attitudes and behaviors, take time off, set boundaries, spend time with family and friends, and ask colleagues for help. And they gained resilience, the study found, by getting older and becoming more experienced.

Hlubocky pointed to several useful resources for burned-out medical professionals, including mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy and breathing apps: She highlighted Breathe2Relax, Headspace, MoodGYM, Stress Gym, and guided audio files from the University of California at San Diego. And she said ASCO has resources on combatting burnout and promoting well-being.

Hlubocky has no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO—Before the pandemic, an estimated one-third of oncologists worldwide suffered a high level of burnout. Cancer physicians face many of the same risk factors as their colleagues—high workloads, lack of autonomy, and no support—along with the added pressure of working in a medical field where patients often die. Then COVID-19 hit, and the burnout crisis got even worse.

This tide can be reversed with a focus on best practices and resilience, a mental health researcher told cancer professionals at the September 2022 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. Assessments, long-term interventions, and communication are all key, said Fay J. Hlubocky, PhD, MA, a clinical health psychologist and ethicist at the University of Chicago.

Even simple actions like taking time for “mindful moments” and checking in with a colleague can make a difference, she said. But institutions must act, she said. “Long-term tailored strategies are incredibly important to promote well-being.”

Hlubocky, who led an American Society of Clinical Oncology committee on burnout prior to the pandemic, noted that statistics about burnout in American medicine and oncology specifically, are grim. In 2017, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that significant numbers of oncologists suffered from high burnout (32%), high psychiatric morbidity (27%), depression (at least 12%), and alcohol misuse (as many as 30%).

The pandemic piled on more stressors. In the second half of 2020, researchers interviewed 25 American oncologists in focus groups and found that their “underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment [and] strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement.”

As one participant put it, “everyone is seeing a lot of death and heartache and social isolation and anger that they’re not used to encountering and in very new and different ways.”

Major contributors to oncologist burnout, Hlubocky said, include moral distress, moral injury, and compassion fatigue. “Moral distress occurs when that individual believes he or she knows the right thing to do, but institutional constraints make it really difficult to do what is right,” Hlubocky said. “The individual is aware of the moral problem, acknowledges and takes moral responsibility, makes some moral judgments, but yet—as a result of these constraints — participates in perceived moral wrongdoing.”

Moral injury refers to the damage that can be caused by moral distress or by witnessing acts that violate morals, such as during military service. Compassion fatigue, meanwhile, is defined by the American Stress Institute as “a low level, chronic clouding of caring and concern for others in your life.”

What can be done? Hlubocky highlighted multiple interventions, such as adjustment of work patterns, cognitive behavioral therapy, and training in mindfulness, relaxation, and communication. One strategy is to adopt multiple in-person interventions simultaneously.

But first it’s crucial for administrators to understand the problem in a specific workplace: “You have to know what’s going on in your organization to intervene on it,” she said. “There are multiple tools that have been validated in other health care fields and can be used on a regular basis over time to measure burnout, satisfaction, and engagement.”

For individuals, other strategies include daily check-ins with colleagues to catch signs of stress, she said, as Toronto oncologists started doing amid the pandemic. The check-ins can include simple questions like: How are you doing? How are you feeling? Are you sleeping, eating and exercising? Do you need help?

As for resilience, Hlubocky said it must grow at the individual level. “We can't rely so much on the organization. We need to develop our personal resilience in order for professional resilience to flourish again, and we have to do a lot to protect ourselves. It’s about focusing on the strength of the individual—that empowerment to rise above adversity, that vitality, that engagement, that self-efficacy. It supports health and enhances coping, and it is the key element of physician and clinician well-being.”

Research into resilience offers guidance about how to achieve it, she said. A 2013 German study of 200 physicians found that the most resilient physicians change their attitudes and behaviors, take time off, set boundaries, spend time with family and friends, and ask colleagues for help. And they gained resilience, the study found, by getting older and becoming more experienced.

Hlubocky pointed to several useful resources for burned-out medical professionals, including mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy and breathing apps: She highlighted Breathe2Relax, Headspace, MoodGYM, Stress Gym, and guided audio files from the University of California at San Diego. And she said ASCO has resources on combatting burnout and promoting well-being.

Hlubocky has no relevant disclosures.

It took 609 days, but the US Senate has finally (unanimously) confirmed President Biden’s choice to head the Indian Health Service (IHS: Roselyn Tso.)

President Biden nominated Tso in March 2022, and she was formally sworn in on September 27, 2022. The long-awaited confirmation filled a space that hadn’t had a permanent director since Michael Weahkee, a Pueblo of Zuni citizen, stepped down in 2021. In the interim, Elizabeth Fowler, of the Comanche Nation, served as acting director.

Tso’s resume includes almost 40 years of professional experience working at all levels of the IHS. Before taking over as IHS director, she led the IHS Navajo area, the largest IHS regional area, managing more than 4000 employees and a budget of nearly $1 billion.

She also brings “decades of lived experience as a member of the Navajo Nation,” she said in a 40-minute Senate hearing with the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in May.

The first Navajo Nation citizen to head the IHS (and only the second woman to do so), Tso introduced herself in Navajo: Deeschii’nii (Start of the Red Streak People) and born for Hashk’aa hadzohi (Yucca Fruit Strung Out). “This is a historic achievement for all of our Navajo people and tribal nations across the country,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez said. “To have one of our own Navajo members in the highest position with IHS is remarkable.”

Tso spoke of having to “navigate the services provided by the Agency for myself, family, and friends.” Her personal and professional backgrounds, she said, help her understand how patients experience the system and how that can be improved. “The health care provided at IHS is critical for those we serve. I understand this not just because I work there,” she said. “My family relies on IHS. My friends rely on IHS. I rely on the IHS.”

The long lacuna in confirming a permanent IHS director left the Native peoples particularly vulnerable—when the COVID-19 pandemic essentially worsened the existing problems they faced, such as diabetes mellitus and cancer. Life expectancy for Native people fell by more than 6 years between 2019 and 2021, to 65 years, compared with the US average of 76 years.

Without a full-time IHS leader, the National Council of Urban Indian Health said in a statement, tribal nations and other Native health care providers struggled to raise and address the issues they were facing amid the pandemic. “Since the resignation of Rear Admiral Weahkee, there have been countless requests from Indian Country calling on Congress and the Administration to nominate a new IHS director to address the growing health disparities experienced by AI/ANs.”

Tso laid out her priorities in her May testimony: creating a more unified health care system using the latest technology to develop centralized systems; improving accountability, transparency, and patient safety; addressing workforce needs and challenges, improving recruitment and retention.

Meeting her goals, she noted, would take “strong partnerships and communication with our Tribal partners…. Each tribe has unique needs, and those needs cannot be met if you do not understand them.”

Last year, President Joseph R. Biden asked Congress to significantly increase IHS funding, but his proposal was cut to $400 million. “For years, IHS has been funded at a rate that is far below its level of need, and the results of this historical neglect can be seen in the disparities in health outcomes for AI/AN people,” William Smith, Valdez Native Tribe, Chairman of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), wrote to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on the topic of the next IHS director. “Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the [Indian, tribal and urban] system is the chronic and severe underfunding and budgetary instability for health care and public health services infrastructure and delivery. Since its creation in 1955, IHS has been chronically underfunded, with annual appropriations never exceeding 50% of demonstrated need. This underfunding has contributed to substandard investment in health delivery systems, some of the worst health disparities among any US population and a severe lack of public health infrastructure and services for our people. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic these vulnerabilities were starkly exposed and while Congress moved decisively to invest into Tribal health and public health, the new Director must work to maintain these one-time investments.”

Stacy Bohlen, NIHB chief executive, told The Oklahoman that tribal leaders will look to Tso to press Congress for more money and to secure mandatory full funding for IHS—in contrast with the current annual appropriations, where Congress includes IHS in much larger budget bills. “When those bills stall, so does the money tribal clinics need to pay employees and suppliers,” making it hard to recruit and retain employees. “In the Indian Health System,” Bohlen says, “we simply can’t afford that kind of vulnerability.”

Securing advance appropriations and, ultimately, full mandatory funding for IHS, Smith wrote in his letter to the Senate committee, “fulfills the commitment made to our people generations ago and breaks down the systemic healthcare funding inequities the federal government tolerates for Tribes.”

Tso emphasized her intent to “improve the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health and well-being of all American Indians and Alaskan Natives served by the Agency.” Tso “understands the healthcare needs that many first people of this country deal with,” President Nez said. “Her work ethic, value system and approach to problem solving demonstrates the resilience of Indigenous peoples and the commitment to combat the systemic inequities that impact tribal nations.”

It took 609 days, but the US Senate has finally (unanimously) confirmed President Biden’s choice to head the Indian Health Service (IHS: Roselyn Tso.)

President Biden nominated Tso in March 2022, and she was formally sworn in on September 27, 2022. The long-awaited confirmation filled a space that hadn’t had a permanent director since Michael Weahkee, a Pueblo of Zuni citizen, stepped down in 2021. In the interim, Elizabeth Fowler, of the Comanche Nation, served as acting director.

Tso’s resume includes almost 40 years of professional experience working at all levels of the IHS. Before taking over as IHS director, she led the IHS Navajo area, the largest IHS regional area, managing more than 4000 employees and a budget of nearly $1 billion.

She also brings “decades of lived experience as a member of the Navajo Nation,” she said in a 40-minute Senate hearing with the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in May.

The first Navajo Nation citizen to head the IHS (and only the second woman to do so), Tso introduced herself in Navajo: Deeschii’nii (Start of the Red Streak People) and born for Hashk’aa hadzohi (Yucca Fruit Strung Out). “This is a historic achievement for all of our Navajo people and tribal nations across the country,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez said. “To have one of our own Navajo members in the highest position with IHS is remarkable.”

Tso spoke of having to “navigate the services provided by the Agency for myself, family, and friends.” Her personal and professional backgrounds, she said, help her understand how patients experience the system and how that can be improved. “The health care provided at IHS is critical for those we serve. I understand this not just because I work there,” she said. “My family relies on IHS. My friends rely on IHS. I rely on the IHS.”

The long lacuna in confirming a permanent IHS director left the Native peoples particularly vulnerable—when the COVID-19 pandemic essentially worsened the existing problems they faced, such as diabetes mellitus and cancer. Life expectancy for Native people fell by more than 6 years between 2019 and 2021, to 65 years, compared with the US average of 76 years.

Without a full-time IHS leader, the National Council of Urban Indian Health said in a statement, tribal nations and other Native health care providers struggled to raise and address the issues they were facing amid the pandemic. “Since the resignation of Rear Admiral Weahkee, there have been countless requests from Indian Country calling on Congress and the Administration to nominate a new IHS director to address the growing health disparities experienced by AI/ANs.”

Tso laid out her priorities in her May testimony: creating a more unified health care system using the latest technology to develop centralized systems; improving accountability, transparency, and patient safety; addressing workforce needs and challenges, improving recruitment and retention.

Meeting her goals, she noted, would take “strong partnerships and communication with our Tribal partners…. Each tribe has unique needs, and those needs cannot be met if you do not understand them.”

Last year, President Joseph R. Biden asked Congress to significantly increase IHS funding, but his proposal was cut to $400 million. “For years, IHS has been funded at a rate that is far below its level of need, and the results of this historical neglect can be seen in the disparities in health outcomes for AI/AN people,” William Smith, Valdez Native Tribe, Chairman of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), wrote to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on the topic of the next IHS director. “Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the [Indian, tribal and urban] system is the chronic and severe underfunding and budgetary instability for health care and public health services infrastructure and delivery. Since its creation in 1955, IHS has been chronically underfunded, with annual appropriations never exceeding 50% of demonstrated need. This underfunding has contributed to substandard investment in health delivery systems, some of the worst health disparities among any US population and a severe lack of public health infrastructure and services for our people. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic these vulnerabilities were starkly exposed and while Congress moved decisively to invest into Tribal health and public health, the new Director must work to maintain these one-time investments.”

Stacy Bohlen, NIHB chief executive, told The Oklahoman that tribal leaders will look to Tso to press Congress for more money and to secure mandatory full funding for IHS—in contrast with the current annual appropriations, where Congress includes IHS in much larger budget bills. “When those bills stall, so does the money tribal clinics need to pay employees and suppliers,” making it hard to recruit and retain employees. “In the Indian Health System,” Bohlen says, “we simply can’t afford that kind of vulnerability.”

Securing advance appropriations and, ultimately, full mandatory funding for IHS, Smith wrote in his letter to the Senate committee, “fulfills the commitment made to our people generations ago and breaks down the systemic healthcare funding inequities the federal government tolerates for Tribes.”

Tso emphasized her intent to “improve the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health and well-being of all American Indians and Alaskan Natives served by the Agency.” Tso “understands the healthcare needs that many first people of this country deal with,” President Nez said. “Her work ethic, value system and approach to problem solving demonstrates the resilience of Indigenous peoples and the commitment to combat the systemic inequities that impact tribal nations.”

It took 609 days, but the US Senate has finally (unanimously) confirmed President Biden’s choice to head the Indian Health Service (IHS: Roselyn Tso.)

President Biden nominated Tso in March 2022, and she was formally sworn in on September 27, 2022. The long-awaited confirmation filled a space that hadn’t had a permanent director since Michael Weahkee, a Pueblo of Zuni citizen, stepped down in 2021. In the interim, Elizabeth Fowler, of the Comanche Nation, served as acting director.

Tso’s resume includes almost 40 years of professional experience working at all levels of the IHS. Before taking over as IHS director, she led the IHS Navajo area, the largest IHS regional area, managing more than 4000 employees and a budget of nearly $1 billion.

She also brings “decades of lived experience as a member of the Navajo Nation,” she said in a 40-minute Senate hearing with the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in May.

The first Navajo Nation citizen to head the IHS (and only the second woman to do so), Tso introduced herself in Navajo: Deeschii’nii (Start of the Red Streak People) and born for Hashk’aa hadzohi (Yucca Fruit Strung Out). “This is a historic achievement for all of our Navajo people and tribal nations across the country,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez said. “To have one of our own Navajo members in the highest position with IHS is remarkable.”

Tso spoke of having to “navigate the services provided by the Agency for myself, family, and friends.” Her personal and professional backgrounds, she said, help her understand how patients experience the system and how that can be improved. “The health care provided at IHS is critical for those we serve. I understand this not just because I work there,” she said. “My family relies on IHS. My friends rely on IHS. I rely on the IHS.”

The long lacuna in confirming a permanent IHS director left the Native peoples particularly vulnerable—when the COVID-19 pandemic essentially worsened the existing problems they faced, such as diabetes mellitus and cancer. Life expectancy for Native people fell by more than 6 years between 2019 and 2021, to 65 years, compared with the US average of 76 years.

Without a full-time IHS leader, the National Council of Urban Indian Health said in a statement, tribal nations and other Native health care providers struggled to raise and address the issues they were facing amid the pandemic. “Since the resignation of Rear Admiral Weahkee, there have been countless requests from Indian Country calling on Congress and the Administration to nominate a new IHS director to address the growing health disparities experienced by AI/ANs.”

Tso laid out her priorities in her May testimony: creating a more unified health care system using the latest technology to develop centralized systems; improving accountability, transparency, and patient safety; addressing workforce needs and challenges, improving recruitment and retention.

Meeting her goals, she noted, would take “strong partnerships and communication with our Tribal partners…. Each tribe has unique needs, and those needs cannot be met if you do not understand them.”

Last year, President Joseph R. Biden asked Congress to significantly increase IHS funding, but his proposal was cut to $400 million. “For years, IHS has been funded at a rate that is far below its level of need, and the results of this historical neglect can be seen in the disparities in health outcomes for AI/AN people,” William Smith, Valdez Native Tribe, Chairman of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), wrote to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on the topic of the next IHS director. “Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the [Indian, tribal and urban] system is the chronic and severe underfunding and budgetary instability for health care and public health services infrastructure and delivery. Since its creation in 1955, IHS has been chronically underfunded, with annual appropriations never exceeding 50% of demonstrated need. This underfunding has contributed to substandard investment in health delivery systems, some of the worst health disparities among any US population and a severe lack of public health infrastructure and services for our people. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic these vulnerabilities were starkly exposed and while Congress moved decisively to invest into Tribal health and public health, the new Director must work to maintain these one-time investments.”

Stacy Bohlen, NIHB chief executive, told The Oklahoman that tribal leaders will look to Tso to press Congress for more money and to secure mandatory full funding for IHS—in contrast with the current annual appropriations, where Congress includes IHS in much larger budget bills. “When those bills stall, so does the money tribal clinics need to pay employees and suppliers,” making it hard to recruit and retain employees. “In the Indian Health System,” Bohlen says, “we simply can’t afford that kind of vulnerability.”

Securing advance appropriations and, ultimately, full mandatory funding for IHS, Smith wrote in his letter to the Senate committee, “fulfills the commitment made to our people generations ago and breaks down the systemic healthcare funding inequities the federal government tolerates for Tribes.”

Tso emphasized her intent to “improve the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health and well-being of all American Indians and Alaskan Natives served by the Agency.” Tso “understands the healthcare needs that many first people of this country deal with,” President Nez said. “Her work ethic, value system and approach to problem solving demonstrates the resilience of Indigenous peoples and the commitment to combat the systemic inequities that impact tribal nations.”

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A weighted blanket of approximately 12% body weight used at bedtime prompted the release of higher concentrations of melatonin, as measured in the saliva, compared with a lighter blanket of only about 2.4% of body weight.

This suggests that weighted blankets may help promote sleep in patients suffering from insomnia, according to the results from the small, in-laboratory crossover study.

“Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland and plays an essential role in sleep timing,” lead author Elisa Meth, PhD student, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues observe.

“Using a weighted blanket increased melatonin concentration in saliva by about 30%,” Ms. Meth added in a statement.

“Future studies should investigate whether the stimulatory effect on melatonin secretion remains when using a weighted blanket over more extended periods,” the researchers observe, and caution that “it is also unclear whether the observed increase in melatonin is therapeutically relevant.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Weighted blankets are commercially available at least in some countries in Scandinavia and Germany, as examples, and in general, they are sold for therapeutic purposes. And at least one study found that weighted blankets were an effective and safe intervention for insomnia in patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and led to improvements in daytime symptoms and levels of activity.
 

Study done in healthy volunteers

The study involved a total of 26 healthy volunteers, 15 men and 11 women, none of whom had any sleep issues. “The day before the first testing session, the participants visited the laboratory for an adaptation night,” the authors observe. There were two experimental test nights, one in which the weighted blanket was used and the second during which the lighter blanket was used.

On the test nights, lights were dimmed between 9 PM and 11 PM and participants used a weighted blanket covering the extremities, abdomen, and chest 1 hour before and during 8 hours of sleep. As the authors explain, the filling of the weighted blanket consisted of honed glass pearls, combined with polyester wadding, which corresponded to 12.2% of participants’ body weight.

“Saliva was collected every 20 minutes between 22:00 and 23:00,” Ms. Meth and colleagues note. Participants’ subjective sleepiness was also assessed every 20 minutes using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale both before the hour that lights were turned off and the next morning.

“Sleep duration in each experimental night was recorded with the OURA ring,” investigators explain.

The OURA ring is a commercial multisensor wearable device that measures physiological variables indicative of sleep. Investigators focused on total sleep duration as the primary outcome measure.

On average, salivary melatonin concentrations rose by about 5.8 pg/mL between 10 PM and 11 PM (P < .001), but the average increase in salivary melatonin concentrations was greater under weighted blanket conditions at 6.6 pg/mL, compared with 5.0 pg/mL during the lighter blanket session (P = .011).

Oxytocin in turn rose by about 315 pg/mL initially, but this rise was only transient, and over time, no significant difference in oxytocin levels was observed between the two blanket conditions. There were also no differences in cortisol levels or the activity of the sympathetic nervous system between the weighted and light blanket sessions.

Importantly, as well, no significant differences were seen in the level of sleepiness between participants when either blanket was used nor was there a significant difference in total sleep duration.

“Our study cannot identify the underlying mechanism for the observed stimulatory effects of the weighted blanket on melatonin,” the investigators caution.

However, one explanation could be that the pressure exerted by the weighted blanket activates cutaneous sensory afferent nerves, carrying information to the brain. The region where the sensory information is delivered stimulates oxytocinergic neurons that can promote calm and well-being and decrease fear, stress, and pain. In addition, these neurons also connect to the pineal gland to influence the release of melatonin, the authors explain.
 

Melatonin often viewed in the wrong context

Senior author Christian Benedict, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology, Uppsala University, Sweden, explained that some people think of melatonin in the wrong context.

In point of fact, “it’s not a sleep-promoting hormone. It prepares your body and brain for the biological night ... [and] sleep coincides with the biological night, but it’s not like you take melatonin and you have a very nice uninterrupted slumber – this is not true,” he told this news organization.

He also noted that certain groups respond to melatonin better than others. For example, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may have some benefit from melatonin supplements, as may the elderly who can no longer produce sufficient amounts of melatonin and for whom supplements may help promote the timing of sleep.

However, the bottom line is that, even in those who do respond to melatonin supplements, they likely do so through a placebo effect that meta-analyses have shown plays a powerful role in promoting sleep. 

Dr. Benedict also stressed that just because the body makes melatonin, itself, does not mean that melatonin supplements are necessarily “safe.”

“We know melatonin has some impact on puberty – it may delay the onset of puberty – and we know that it can also impair blood glucose, so when people are eating and have a lot of melatonin on board, the melatonin will tell the pancreas to turn off insulin production, which can give rise to hyperglycemia,” he said.

However, Dr. Benedict cautioned that weighted blankets don’t come cheap. A quick Google search brings up examples that cost upwards of $350. “MDs can say try one if you can afford these blankets, but perhaps people can use several less costly blankets,” he said. “But I definitely think if there are cheap options, why not?” he concluded.

Dr. Benedict has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A weighted blanket of approximately 12% body weight used at bedtime prompted the release of higher concentrations of melatonin, as measured in the saliva, compared with a lighter blanket of only about 2.4% of body weight.

This suggests that weighted blankets may help promote sleep in patients suffering from insomnia, according to the results from the small, in-laboratory crossover study.

“Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland and plays an essential role in sleep timing,” lead author Elisa Meth, PhD student, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues observe.

“Using a weighted blanket increased melatonin concentration in saliva by about 30%,” Ms. Meth added in a statement.

“Future studies should investigate whether the stimulatory effect on melatonin secretion remains when using a weighted blanket over more extended periods,” the researchers observe, and caution that “it is also unclear whether the observed increase in melatonin is therapeutically relevant.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Weighted blankets are commercially available at least in some countries in Scandinavia and Germany, as examples, and in general, they are sold for therapeutic purposes. And at least one study found that weighted blankets were an effective and safe intervention for insomnia in patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and led to improvements in daytime symptoms and levels of activity.
 

Study done in healthy volunteers

The study involved a total of 26 healthy volunteers, 15 men and 11 women, none of whom had any sleep issues. “The day before the first testing session, the participants visited the laboratory for an adaptation night,” the authors observe. There were two experimental test nights, one in which the weighted blanket was used and the second during which the lighter blanket was used.

On the test nights, lights were dimmed between 9 PM and 11 PM and participants used a weighted blanket covering the extremities, abdomen, and chest 1 hour before and during 8 hours of sleep. As the authors explain, the filling of the weighted blanket consisted of honed glass pearls, combined with polyester wadding, which corresponded to 12.2% of participants’ body weight.

“Saliva was collected every 20 minutes between 22:00 and 23:00,” Ms. Meth and colleagues note. Participants’ subjective sleepiness was also assessed every 20 minutes using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale both before the hour that lights were turned off and the next morning.

“Sleep duration in each experimental night was recorded with the OURA ring,” investigators explain.

The OURA ring is a commercial multisensor wearable device that measures physiological variables indicative of sleep. Investigators focused on total sleep duration as the primary outcome measure.

On average, salivary melatonin concentrations rose by about 5.8 pg/mL between 10 PM and 11 PM (P < .001), but the average increase in salivary melatonin concentrations was greater under weighted blanket conditions at 6.6 pg/mL, compared with 5.0 pg/mL during the lighter blanket session (P = .011).

Oxytocin in turn rose by about 315 pg/mL initially, but this rise was only transient, and over time, no significant difference in oxytocin levels was observed between the two blanket conditions. There were also no differences in cortisol levels or the activity of the sympathetic nervous system between the weighted and light blanket sessions.

Importantly, as well, no significant differences were seen in the level of sleepiness between participants when either blanket was used nor was there a significant difference in total sleep duration.

“Our study cannot identify the underlying mechanism for the observed stimulatory effects of the weighted blanket on melatonin,” the investigators caution.

However, one explanation could be that the pressure exerted by the weighted blanket activates cutaneous sensory afferent nerves, carrying information to the brain. The region where the sensory information is delivered stimulates oxytocinergic neurons that can promote calm and well-being and decrease fear, stress, and pain. In addition, these neurons also connect to the pineal gland to influence the release of melatonin, the authors explain.
 

Melatonin often viewed in the wrong context

Senior author Christian Benedict, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology, Uppsala University, Sweden, explained that some people think of melatonin in the wrong context.

In point of fact, “it’s not a sleep-promoting hormone. It prepares your body and brain for the biological night ... [and] sleep coincides with the biological night, but it’s not like you take melatonin and you have a very nice uninterrupted slumber – this is not true,” he told this news organization.

He also noted that certain groups respond to melatonin better than others. For example, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may have some benefit from melatonin supplements, as may the elderly who can no longer produce sufficient amounts of melatonin and for whom supplements may help promote the timing of sleep.

However, the bottom line is that, even in those who do respond to melatonin supplements, they likely do so through a placebo effect that meta-analyses have shown plays a powerful role in promoting sleep. 

Dr. Benedict also stressed that just because the body makes melatonin, itself, does not mean that melatonin supplements are necessarily “safe.”

“We know melatonin has some impact on puberty – it may delay the onset of puberty – and we know that it can also impair blood glucose, so when people are eating and have a lot of melatonin on board, the melatonin will tell the pancreas to turn off insulin production, which can give rise to hyperglycemia,” he said.

However, Dr. Benedict cautioned that weighted blankets don’t come cheap. A quick Google search brings up examples that cost upwards of $350. “MDs can say try one if you can afford these blankets, but perhaps people can use several less costly blankets,” he said. “But I definitely think if there are cheap options, why not?” he concluded.

Dr. Benedict has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A weighted blanket of approximately 12% body weight used at bedtime prompted the release of higher concentrations of melatonin, as measured in the saliva, compared with a lighter blanket of only about 2.4% of body weight.

This suggests that weighted blankets may help promote sleep in patients suffering from insomnia, according to the results from the small, in-laboratory crossover study.

“Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland and plays an essential role in sleep timing,” lead author Elisa Meth, PhD student, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues observe.

“Using a weighted blanket increased melatonin concentration in saliva by about 30%,” Ms. Meth added in a statement.

“Future studies should investigate whether the stimulatory effect on melatonin secretion remains when using a weighted blanket over more extended periods,” the researchers observe, and caution that “it is also unclear whether the observed increase in melatonin is therapeutically relevant.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Weighted blankets are commercially available at least in some countries in Scandinavia and Germany, as examples, and in general, they are sold for therapeutic purposes. And at least one study found that weighted blankets were an effective and safe intervention for insomnia in patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and led to improvements in daytime symptoms and levels of activity.
 

Study done in healthy volunteers

The study involved a total of 26 healthy volunteers, 15 men and 11 women, none of whom had any sleep issues. “The day before the first testing session, the participants visited the laboratory for an adaptation night,” the authors observe. There were two experimental test nights, one in which the weighted blanket was used and the second during which the lighter blanket was used.

On the test nights, lights were dimmed between 9 PM and 11 PM and participants used a weighted blanket covering the extremities, abdomen, and chest 1 hour before and during 8 hours of sleep. As the authors explain, the filling of the weighted blanket consisted of honed glass pearls, combined with polyester wadding, which corresponded to 12.2% of participants’ body weight.

“Saliva was collected every 20 minutes between 22:00 and 23:00,” Ms. Meth and colleagues note. Participants’ subjective sleepiness was also assessed every 20 minutes using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale both before the hour that lights were turned off and the next morning.

“Sleep duration in each experimental night was recorded with the OURA ring,” investigators explain.

The OURA ring is a commercial multisensor wearable device that measures physiological variables indicative of sleep. Investigators focused on total sleep duration as the primary outcome measure.

On average, salivary melatonin concentrations rose by about 5.8 pg/mL between 10 PM and 11 PM (P < .001), but the average increase in salivary melatonin concentrations was greater under weighted blanket conditions at 6.6 pg/mL, compared with 5.0 pg/mL during the lighter blanket session (P = .011).

Oxytocin in turn rose by about 315 pg/mL initially, but this rise was only transient, and over time, no significant difference in oxytocin levels was observed between the two blanket conditions. There were also no differences in cortisol levels or the activity of the sympathetic nervous system between the weighted and light blanket sessions.

Importantly, as well, no significant differences were seen in the level of sleepiness between participants when either blanket was used nor was there a significant difference in total sleep duration.

“Our study cannot identify the underlying mechanism for the observed stimulatory effects of the weighted blanket on melatonin,” the investigators caution.

However, one explanation could be that the pressure exerted by the weighted blanket activates cutaneous sensory afferent nerves, carrying information to the brain. The region where the sensory information is delivered stimulates oxytocinergic neurons that can promote calm and well-being and decrease fear, stress, and pain. In addition, these neurons also connect to the pineal gland to influence the release of melatonin, the authors explain.
 

Melatonin often viewed in the wrong context

Senior author Christian Benedict, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology, Uppsala University, Sweden, explained that some people think of melatonin in the wrong context.

In point of fact, “it’s not a sleep-promoting hormone. It prepares your body and brain for the biological night ... [and] sleep coincides with the biological night, but it’s not like you take melatonin and you have a very nice uninterrupted slumber – this is not true,” he told this news organization.

He also noted that certain groups respond to melatonin better than others. For example, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may have some benefit from melatonin supplements, as may the elderly who can no longer produce sufficient amounts of melatonin and for whom supplements may help promote the timing of sleep.

However, the bottom line is that, even in those who do respond to melatonin supplements, they likely do so through a placebo effect that meta-analyses have shown plays a powerful role in promoting sleep. 

Dr. Benedict also stressed that just because the body makes melatonin, itself, does not mean that melatonin supplements are necessarily “safe.”

“We know melatonin has some impact on puberty – it may delay the onset of puberty – and we know that it can also impair blood glucose, so when people are eating and have a lot of melatonin on board, the melatonin will tell the pancreas to turn off insulin production, which can give rise to hyperglycemia,” he said.

However, Dr. Benedict cautioned that weighted blankets don’t come cheap. A quick Google search brings up examples that cost upwards of $350. “MDs can say try one if you can afford these blankets, but perhaps people can use several less costly blankets,” he said. “But I definitely think if there are cheap options, why not?” he concluded.

Dr. Benedict has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults who take part in regular weight lifting – either with or without moderate to vigorous aerobic activity – show significant reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, with the strongest effects observed when the two types of exercise are combined, new research shows.

“The novel finding from our study is that weight lifting is independently associated with lower all-cause and CVD-specific mortality, regardless of aerobic activity,” first author Jessica Gorzelitz, PhD, said in an interview.

Wavebreakmedia/Getty Images

“What’s less surprising – but consistent and nonetheless noteworthy – is that weight lifting in combination with aerobic exercise provides the lowest...risk for mortality in older adults,” added Dr. Gorzelitz, an assistant professor of health promotion in the department of health and human physiology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Those who undertook weight lifting and aerobic exercise in combination had around a 40% lower risk of death than those who reported no moderate to vigorous aerobic activity or weight lifting. The findings were recently published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Physical activity guidelines generally recommend regular moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity, in addition to at least 2 days per week of muscle-strengthening exercise for all major muscle groups for adults to improve health and boost longevity.

However, few observational studies have examined the association between muscle strengthening and mortality, and even fewer have looked specifically at the benefits of weight lifting, Dr. Gorzelitz said.
 

Benefit of weight lifting stronger in women than men

To investigate, Dr. Gorzelitz and coauthors evaluated data on participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, which, initiated in 1993, and involved adults aged 55-74 at 10 U.S. cancer centers.

Thirteen years into the trial, in 2006, participants completed follow-up questionnaires that included an assessment of weight lifting (not included in a baseline survey).

Among 99,713 participants involved in the current analysis, the mean age at the time of the follow-up questionnaire was 71.3 years. Participants had a mean body mass index of 27.8 kg/m² and 52.6% were women.

Only about a quarter of adults (23%) reported any weight lifting activity within the previous 12 months, with fewer, at 16%, reporting regular weight lifting of between one and six times per week.

Participants’ physical aerobic activity was also assessed. Physical activity guidelines (2018) recommend at least 150-300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or 75-150 minutes per week of vigorous intensity aerobic activity or an equal combination of the two. Overall, 23.6% of participants reported activity that met the guideline for moderate to vigorous physical activity, and 8% exceeded it.

Over a median follow-up of about 9 years, 28,477 deaths occurred.

Those reporting weight lifting had a 9% lower risk of combined all-cause mortality and CVD mortality, after adjustment for any moderate to vigorous physical activity (each hazard ratio, 0.91).

Adults who met aerobic activity recommendations but did not weight lift had a 32% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.68), while those who also reported weight lifting 1-2 times per week in addition to the aerobic activity had as much as a 41% lower risk of death (HR, 0.59), compared with adults reporting no moderate to vigorous aerobic activity or weight lifting.

The benefit of weight lifting in terms of cancer mortality was only observed without adjustment for moderate to vigorous physical activity, and was therefore considered null, which Dr. Gorzelitz said was somewhat surprising. “We will examine this association further because there could still be a signal there,” she said, noting other studies have shown that muscle strengthening activity is associated with lower cancer-specific mortality.

Of note, the benefit of weight lifting appeared stronger in women versus men, Dr. Gorzelitz said.
 

What are the mechanisms?

Underscoring that the results show only associations and not causation, Dr. Gorzelitz speculated that mechanisms behind a mortality benefit could include known favorable physiological changes of weight lifting.

“If people are weight lifting [to a degree] to reap strength benefits, we generally see improvement in body composition, including reductions in fat and improvements in lean tissue, and we know that those changes are associated with mortality, so it could be that the weight lifting is driving the strength or body composition,” she said.

The full body response involved in weight lifting could also play a key role, she noted.

With weight lifting, “the muscles have to redirect more blood flow, the heart is pumping harder, the lungs breathe more and when the muscles are worked in that fashion, there could be other system-wide adaptations,” she said.

Furthermore, social aspects could play a role, Dr. Gorzelitz observed.

“Unlike muscle strengthening [activities] that can be done in the home setting, weight lifting typically has to be done in recreational facilities or other community centers, and considering that this is an older adult population, that social interaction could be very key for preventing isolation.”

Important limitations include that the study did not determine the nature of the weight lifting, including the duration of the weight lifting sessions or type of weight, which could feasibly range from small hand-held weights to heavier weight lifting.

The study also couldn’t show how long participants had engaged in weight lifting in terms of months or years, hence, the duration needed to see a mortality benefit was not established.

Nevertheless, the study’s finding that the group with the lowest benefits was the one reporting no aerobic or weight lifting exercise underscores the benefits of even small amounts of exercise.

“I think it’s really important to promote the importance of adding muscle strengthening, but also of any physical activity,” Dr. Gorzelitz said. “Start small, but something is better than nothing.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults who take part in regular weight lifting – either with or without moderate to vigorous aerobic activity – show significant reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, with the strongest effects observed when the two types of exercise are combined, new research shows.

“The novel finding from our study is that weight lifting is independently associated with lower all-cause and CVD-specific mortality, regardless of aerobic activity,” first author Jessica Gorzelitz, PhD, said in an interview.

Wavebreakmedia/Getty Images

“What’s less surprising – but consistent and nonetheless noteworthy – is that weight lifting in combination with aerobic exercise provides the lowest...risk for mortality in older adults,” added Dr. Gorzelitz, an assistant professor of health promotion in the department of health and human physiology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Those who undertook weight lifting and aerobic exercise in combination had around a 40% lower risk of death than those who reported no moderate to vigorous aerobic activity or weight lifting. The findings were recently published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Physical activity guidelines generally recommend regular moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity, in addition to at least 2 days per week of muscle-strengthening exercise for all major muscle groups for adults to improve health and boost longevity.

However, few observational studies have examined the association between muscle strengthening and mortality, and even fewer have looked specifically at the benefits of weight lifting, Dr. Gorzelitz said.
 

Benefit of weight lifting stronger in women than men

To investigate, Dr. Gorzelitz and coauthors evaluated data on participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, which, initiated in 1993, and involved adults aged 55-74 at 10 U.S. cancer centers.

Thirteen years into the trial, in 2006, participants completed follow-up questionnaires that included an assessment of weight lifting (not included in a baseline survey).

Among 99,713 participants involved in the current analysis, the mean age at the time of the follow-up questionnaire was 71.3 years. Participants had a mean body mass index of 27.8 kg/m² and 52.6% were women.

Only about a quarter of adults (23%) reported any weight lifting activity within the previous 12 months, with fewer, at 16%, reporting regular weight lifting of between one and six times per week.

Participants’ physical aerobic activity was also assessed. Physical activity guidelines (2018) recommend at least 150-300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or 75-150 minutes per week of vigorous intensity aerobic activity or an equal combination of the two. Overall, 23.6% of participants reported activity that met the guideline for moderate to vigorous physical activity, and 8% exceeded it.

Over a median follow-up of about 9 years, 28,477 deaths occurred.

Those reporting weight lifting had a 9% lower risk of combined all-cause mortality and CVD mortality, after adjustment for any moderate to vigorous physical activity (each hazard ratio, 0.91).

Adults who met aerobic activity recommendations but did not weight lift had a 32% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.68), while those who also reported weight lifting 1-2 times per week in addition to the aerobic activity had as much as a 41% lower risk of death (HR, 0.59), compared with adults reporting no moderate to vigorous aerobic activity or weight lifting.

The benefit of weight lifting in terms of cancer mortality was only observed without adjustment for moderate to vigorous physical activity, and was therefore considered null, which Dr. Gorzelitz said was somewhat surprising. “We will examine this association further because there could still be a signal there,” she said, noting other studies have shown that muscle strengthening activity is associated with lower cancer-specific mortality.

Of note, the benefit of weight lifting appeared stronger in women versus men, Dr. Gorzelitz said.
 

What are the mechanisms?

Underscoring that the results show only associations and not causation, Dr. Gorzelitz speculated that mechanisms behind a mortality benefit could include known favorable physiological changes of weight lifting.

“If people are weight lifting [to a degree] to reap strength benefits, we generally see improvement in body composition, including reductions in fat and improvements in lean tissue, and we know that those changes are associated with mortality, so it could be that the weight lifting is driving the strength or body composition,” she said.

The full body response involved in weight lifting could also play a key role, she noted.

With weight lifting, “the muscles have to redirect more blood flow, the heart is pumping harder, the lungs breathe more and when the muscles are worked in that fashion, there could be other system-wide adaptations,” she said.

Furthermore, social aspects could play a role, Dr. Gorzelitz observed.

“Unlike muscle strengthening [activities] that can be done in the home setting, weight lifting typically has to be done in recreational facilities or other community centers, and considering that this is an older adult population, that social interaction could be very key for preventing isolation.”

Important limitations include that the study did not determine the nature of the weight lifting, including the duration of the weight lifting sessions or type of weight, which could feasibly range from small hand-held weights to heavier weight lifting.

The study also couldn’t show how long participants had engaged in weight lifting in terms of months or years, hence, the duration needed to see a mortality benefit was not established.

Nevertheless, the study’s finding that the group with the lowest benefits was the one reporting no aerobic or weight lifting exercise underscores the benefits of even small amounts of exercise.

“I think it’s really important to promote the importance of adding muscle strengthening, but also of any physical activity,” Dr. Gorzelitz said. “Start small, but something is better than nothing.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults who take part in regular weight lifting – either with or without moderate to vigorous aerobic activity – show significant reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, with the strongest effects observed when the two types of exercise are combined, new research shows.

“The novel finding from our study is that weight lifting is independently associated with lower all-cause and CVD-specific mortality, regardless of aerobic activity,” first author Jessica Gorzelitz, PhD, said in an interview.

Wavebreakmedia/Getty Images

“What’s less surprising – but consistent and nonetheless noteworthy – is that weight lifting in combination with aerobic exercise provides the lowest...risk for mortality in older adults,” added Dr. Gorzelitz, an assistant professor of health promotion in the department of health and human physiology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Those who undertook weight lifting and aerobic exercise in combination had around a 40% lower risk of death than those who reported no moderate to vigorous aerobic activity or weight lifting. The findings were recently published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Physical activity guidelines generally recommend regular moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity, in addition to at least 2 days per week of muscle-strengthening exercise for all major muscle groups for adults to improve health and boost longevity.

However, few observational studies have examined the association between muscle strengthening and mortality, and even fewer have looked specifically at the benefits of weight lifting, Dr. Gorzelitz said.
 

Benefit of weight lifting stronger in women than men

To investigate, Dr. Gorzelitz and coauthors evaluated data on participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, which, initiated in 1993, and involved adults aged 55-74 at 10 U.S. cancer centers.

Thirteen years into the trial, in 2006, participants completed follow-up questionnaires that included an assessment of weight lifting (not included in a baseline survey).

Among 99,713 participants involved in the current analysis, the mean age at the time of the follow-up questionnaire was 71.3 years. Participants had a mean body mass index of 27.8 kg/m² and 52.6% were women.

Only about a quarter of adults (23%) reported any weight lifting activity within the previous 12 months, with fewer, at 16%, reporting regular weight lifting of between one and six times per week.

Participants’ physical aerobic activity was also assessed. Physical activity guidelines (2018) recommend at least 150-300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or 75-150 minutes per week of vigorous intensity aerobic activity or an equal combination of the two. Overall, 23.6% of participants reported activity that met the guideline for moderate to vigorous physical activity, and 8% exceeded it.

Over a median follow-up of about 9 years, 28,477 deaths occurred.

Those reporting weight lifting had a 9% lower risk of combined all-cause mortality and CVD mortality, after adjustment for any moderate to vigorous physical activity (each hazard ratio, 0.91).

Adults who met aerobic activity recommendations but did not weight lift had a 32% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.68), while those who also reported weight lifting 1-2 times per week in addition to the aerobic activity had as much as a 41% lower risk of death (HR, 0.59), compared with adults reporting no moderate to vigorous aerobic activity or weight lifting.

The benefit of weight lifting in terms of cancer mortality was only observed without adjustment for moderate to vigorous physical activity, and was therefore considered null, which Dr. Gorzelitz said was somewhat surprising. “We will examine this association further because there could still be a signal there,” she said, noting other studies have shown that muscle strengthening activity is associated with lower cancer-specific mortality.

Of note, the benefit of weight lifting appeared stronger in women versus men, Dr. Gorzelitz said.
 

What are the mechanisms?

Underscoring that the results show only associations and not causation, Dr. Gorzelitz speculated that mechanisms behind a mortality benefit could include known favorable physiological changes of weight lifting.

“If people are weight lifting [to a degree] to reap strength benefits, we generally see improvement in body composition, including reductions in fat and improvements in lean tissue, and we know that those changes are associated with mortality, so it could be that the weight lifting is driving the strength or body composition,” she said.

The full body response involved in weight lifting could also play a key role, she noted.

With weight lifting, “the muscles have to redirect more blood flow, the heart is pumping harder, the lungs breathe more and when the muscles are worked in that fashion, there could be other system-wide adaptations,” she said.

Furthermore, social aspects could play a role, Dr. Gorzelitz observed.

“Unlike muscle strengthening [activities] that can be done in the home setting, weight lifting typically has to be done in recreational facilities or other community centers, and considering that this is an older adult population, that social interaction could be very key for preventing isolation.”

Important limitations include that the study did not determine the nature of the weight lifting, including the duration of the weight lifting sessions or type of weight, which could feasibly range from small hand-held weights to heavier weight lifting.

The study also couldn’t show how long participants had engaged in weight lifting in terms of months or years, hence, the duration needed to see a mortality benefit was not established.

Nevertheless, the study’s finding that the group with the lowest benefits was the one reporting no aerobic or weight lifting exercise underscores the benefits of even small amounts of exercise.

“I think it’s really important to promote the importance of adding muscle strengthening, but also of any physical activity,” Dr. Gorzelitz said. “Start small, but something is better than nothing.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – The real-world risk of colorectal cancer and associated mortality was lower among people who underwent a single screening colonoscopy than among those who did not have a colonoscopy, though only modestly so, the 10-year follow-up of the large, multicenter, randomized Northern-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial shows.

In effect, this means the number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer is 455 (95% confidence interval, 270-1,429), the researchers determined.

The results were presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022 meeting and were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of the study, which was designed to be truly population based and to mimic national colorectal cancer screening programs, provide an estimate of the effect of screening colonoscopy in the general population.

The primary outcome was determined on an intention-to-screen basis. All persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy screening were compared with people who received usual care (that is, received no invitation or screening). At UEG 2022, the researchers presented the interim 10-year colorectal cancer risk, which was found to be 0.98%, compared to 1.20%. This represents a risk reduction of 18% among colonoscopy invitees (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93). During the study period, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group versus622 in the usual-care group.

The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). The risk of death from any cause was similar in both the invited group and the usual-care group, at 11.03% and 11.04%, respectively (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04).

The authors noted that the benefit would have been greater had more people undergone screening; only 42% of those who were invited actually underwent colonoscopy. In an adjusted analysis, had all those who had been invited to undergo screening undergone colonoscopy, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84%, and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death would have fallen from 0.30% to 0.15%.

The researchers, led by gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, from the department of medicine, gastrointestinal endoscopy, University of Oslo, who presented the data at UEG 2022 on behalf of the NordICC study group, acknowledged that, despite the “observed appreciable reductions in relative risks, the absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned.”

However, they add that “optimism related to the effects of screening on colorectal cancer–related death may be warranted in light of the 50% decrease observed in adjusted per-protocol analyses.”

With his coauthors, Dr. Bretthauer wrote that even their adjusted findings “probably underestimated the benefit because, as in most other large-scale trials of colorectal cancer screening, we could not adjust for all important confounders in all countries.”

Dr. Bretthauer also noted that results were similar to those achieved through sigmoidoscopy screening. By close comparison, sigmoidoscopy studies show the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced between 33% and 40%, according to per protocol analyses. “These results suggest that colonoscopy screening might not be substantially better in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer than sigmoidoscopy.”
 

Real-world, population-based study

NordICC is an ongoing, pragmatic study and is the first randomized trial to quantify the possible benefit of colonoscopy screening on risk of colorectal cancer and related death.

Researchers recruited healthy men and women from registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Most participants came from Poland (54,258), followed by Norway (26,411) and Sweden (3,646). Data from the Netherlands could not be included owing to data protection law.

At baseline, 84,585 participants aged 55-64 years were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (28,220; invited) or to undergo usual care in each participant country (56,365; no invitation or screening).

Any colorectal cancer lesions detected were removed, whenever possible. The primary endpoints were the risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death. The secondary endpoint was death from any cause.
 

‘Modest effectiveness,’ but longer follow-up to give fuller picture

In an editorial that accompanied publication of the study, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, from the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, and Douglas J. Robertson, MD, from White River Junction (Vt.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center, commented on the possible reasons for the low reduction in incident cancer and deaths seen in NordICC.

They pointed out that cohort studies suggest a 40%-69% decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 29%-88% decrease in the risk of death with colonoscopy. However, they noted that “cohort studies probably overestimate the real-world effectiveness of colonoscopy because of the inability to adjust for important factors such as incomplete adherence to testing and the tendency of healthier persons to seek preventive care.”

Referring to Dr. Bretthauer’s point about attendance to screening, Dr. Dominitz and Dr. Robertson added that, in the United States, colonoscopy is the predominant form of screening for colorectal cancer and that in countries where colonoscopy is less established, participation may be very different.

“The actual effectiveness of colonoscopy in populations that are more accepting of colonoscopy could more closely resemble the effectiveness shown in the per-protocol analysis in this trial,” they wrote.

The editorialists also pointed out that the benefits of screening colonoscopy take time to be realized “because the incidence of colorectal cancer is initially increased when presymptomatic cancers are identified.” A repeat and final analysis of the NordICC data is due at 15 years’ follow-up.

In addition, they noted that “colonoscopy is highly operator dependent” and that the adenoma detection rate is variable and affects cancer risk and related mortality.

Given the “modest effectiveness” of screening colonoscopy in the trial, they asserted that, “if the trial truly represents the real-world performance of population-based screening colonoscopy, it might be hard to justify the risk and expense of this form of screening when simpler, less-invasive strategies (e.g., sigmoidoscopy and FIT [fecal immunochemical test]) are available.”

However, they also noted that “additional analyses, including longer follow up and results from other ongoing comparative effectiveness trials, will help us to fully understand the benefits of this test.”

Also commenting on the study was Michiel Maas, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, told this news organization that he agreed that the absolute effect on colorectal cancer risk or colorectal cancer–related death was not as high as expected and may be disappointing.

But Dr. Maas said that “around half of the patients in the study did not undergo colonoscopy, which may have negatively impacted the results.

“An additional factor, which can be influential in colonoscopy studies, is the potential variability in detection rates between operators/endoscopists,” he said.

Looking to the future, Dr. Maas noted that “AI [artificial intelligence] or computer-aided detection can level this playing field in detection rates.

“Nevertheless, this is a very interesting study, which sheds a new light on the efficacy on screening colonoscopies,” he said.

Dr. Bretthauer has relationships with Paion, Cybernet, and the Norwegian Council of Research. Dr. Dominitz is cochair of VA Cooperative Studies Program #577: “Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer” (the CONFIRM Study), which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Robertson is national cochair (with Dr. Dominitz) of the CONFIRM trial and has received personal fees from Freenome outside of the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – The real-world risk of colorectal cancer and associated mortality was lower among people who underwent a single screening colonoscopy than among those who did not have a colonoscopy, though only modestly so, the 10-year follow-up of the large, multicenter, randomized Northern-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial shows.

In effect, this means the number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer is 455 (95% confidence interval, 270-1,429), the researchers determined.

The results were presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022 meeting and were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of the study, which was designed to be truly population based and to mimic national colorectal cancer screening programs, provide an estimate of the effect of screening colonoscopy in the general population.

The primary outcome was determined on an intention-to-screen basis. All persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy screening were compared with people who received usual care (that is, received no invitation or screening). At UEG 2022, the researchers presented the interim 10-year colorectal cancer risk, which was found to be 0.98%, compared to 1.20%. This represents a risk reduction of 18% among colonoscopy invitees (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93). During the study period, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group versus622 in the usual-care group.

The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). The risk of death from any cause was similar in both the invited group and the usual-care group, at 11.03% and 11.04%, respectively (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04).

The authors noted that the benefit would have been greater had more people undergone screening; only 42% of those who were invited actually underwent colonoscopy. In an adjusted analysis, had all those who had been invited to undergo screening undergone colonoscopy, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84%, and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death would have fallen from 0.30% to 0.15%.

The researchers, led by gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, from the department of medicine, gastrointestinal endoscopy, University of Oslo, who presented the data at UEG 2022 on behalf of the NordICC study group, acknowledged that, despite the “observed appreciable reductions in relative risks, the absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned.”

However, they add that “optimism related to the effects of screening on colorectal cancer–related death may be warranted in light of the 50% decrease observed in adjusted per-protocol analyses.”

With his coauthors, Dr. Bretthauer wrote that even their adjusted findings “probably underestimated the benefit because, as in most other large-scale trials of colorectal cancer screening, we could not adjust for all important confounders in all countries.”

Dr. Bretthauer also noted that results were similar to those achieved through sigmoidoscopy screening. By close comparison, sigmoidoscopy studies show the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced between 33% and 40%, according to per protocol analyses. “These results suggest that colonoscopy screening might not be substantially better in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer than sigmoidoscopy.”
 

Real-world, population-based study

NordICC is an ongoing, pragmatic study and is the first randomized trial to quantify the possible benefit of colonoscopy screening on risk of colorectal cancer and related death.

Researchers recruited healthy men and women from registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Most participants came from Poland (54,258), followed by Norway (26,411) and Sweden (3,646). Data from the Netherlands could not be included owing to data protection law.

At baseline, 84,585 participants aged 55-64 years were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (28,220; invited) or to undergo usual care in each participant country (56,365; no invitation or screening).

Any colorectal cancer lesions detected were removed, whenever possible. The primary endpoints were the risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death. The secondary endpoint was death from any cause.
 

‘Modest effectiveness,’ but longer follow-up to give fuller picture

In an editorial that accompanied publication of the study, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, from the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, and Douglas J. Robertson, MD, from White River Junction (Vt.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center, commented on the possible reasons for the low reduction in incident cancer and deaths seen in NordICC.

They pointed out that cohort studies suggest a 40%-69% decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 29%-88% decrease in the risk of death with colonoscopy. However, they noted that “cohort studies probably overestimate the real-world effectiveness of colonoscopy because of the inability to adjust for important factors such as incomplete adherence to testing and the tendency of healthier persons to seek preventive care.”

Referring to Dr. Bretthauer’s point about attendance to screening, Dr. Dominitz and Dr. Robertson added that, in the United States, colonoscopy is the predominant form of screening for colorectal cancer and that in countries where colonoscopy is less established, participation may be very different.

“The actual effectiveness of colonoscopy in populations that are more accepting of colonoscopy could more closely resemble the effectiveness shown in the per-protocol analysis in this trial,” they wrote.

The editorialists also pointed out that the benefits of screening colonoscopy take time to be realized “because the incidence of colorectal cancer is initially increased when presymptomatic cancers are identified.” A repeat and final analysis of the NordICC data is due at 15 years’ follow-up.

In addition, they noted that “colonoscopy is highly operator dependent” and that the adenoma detection rate is variable and affects cancer risk and related mortality.

Given the “modest effectiveness” of screening colonoscopy in the trial, they asserted that, “if the trial truly represents the real-world performance of population-based screening colonoscopy, it might be hard to justify the risk and expense of this form of screening when simpler, less-invasive strategies (e.g., sigmoidoscopy and FIT [fecal immunochemical test]) are available.”

However, they also noted that “additional analyses, including longer follow up and results from other ongoing comparative effectiveness trials, will help us to fully understand the benefits of this test.”

Also commenting on the study was Michiel Maas, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, told this news organization that he agreed that the absolute effect on colorectal cancer risk or colorectal cancer–related death was not as high as expected and may be disappointing.

But Dr. Maas said that “around half of the patients in the study did not undergo colonoscopy, which may have negatively impacted the results.

“An additional factor, which can be influential in colonoscopy studies, is the potential variability in detection rates between operators/endoscopists,” he said.

Looking to the future, Dr. Maas noted that “AI [artificial intelligence] or computer-aided detection can level this playing field in detection rates.

“Nevertheless, this is a very interesting study, which sheds a new light on the efficacy on screening colonoscopies,” he said.

Dr. Bretthauer has relationships with Paion, Cybernet, and the Norwegian Council of Research. Dr. Dominitz is cochair of VA Cooperative Studies Program #577: “Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer” (the CONFIRM Study), which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Robertson is national cochair (with Dr. Dominitz) of the CONFIRM trial and has received personal fees from Freenome outside of the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – The real-world risk of colorectal cancer and associated mortality was lower among people who underwent a single screening colonoscopy than among those who did not have a colonoscopy, though only modestly so, the 10-year follow-up of the large, multicenter, randomized Northern-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial shows.

In effect, this means the number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer is 455 (95% confidence interval, 270-1,429), the researchers determined.

The results were presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022 meeting and were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of the study, which was designed to be truly population based and to mimic national colorectal cancer screening programs, provide an estimate of the effect of screening colonoscopy in the general population.

The primary outcome was determined on an intention-to-screen basis. All persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy screening were compared with people who received usual care (that is, received no invitation or screening). At UEG 2022, the researchers presented the interim 10-year colorectal cancer risk, which was found to be 0.98%, compared to 1.20%. This represents a risk reduction of 18% among colonoscopy invitees (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93). During the study period, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group versus622 in the usual-care group.

The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). The risk of death from any cause was similar in both the invited group and the usual-care group, at 11.03% and 11.04%, respectively (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04).

The authors noted that the benefit would have been greater had more people undergone screening; only 42% of those who were invited actually underwent colonoscopy. In an adjusted analysis, had all those who had been invited to undergo screening undergone colonoscopy, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84%, and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death would have fallen from 0.30% to 0.15%.

The researchers, led by gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, from the department of medicine, gastrointestinal endoscopy, University of Oslo, who presented the data at UEG 2022 on behalf of the NordICC study group, acknowledged that, despite the “observed appreciable reductions in relative risks, the absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned.”

However, they add that “optimism related to the effects of screening on colorectal cancer–related death may be warranted in light of the 50% decrease observed in adjusted per-protocol analyses.”

With his coauthors, Dr. Bretthauer wrote that even their adjusted findings “probably underestimated the benefit because, as in most other large-scale trials of colorectal cancer screening, we could not adjust for all important confounders in all countries.”

Dr. Bretthauer also noted that results were similar to those achieved through sigmoidoscopy screening. By close comparison, sigmoidoscopy studies show the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced between 33% and 40%, according to per protocol analyses. “These results suggest that colonoscopy screening might not be substantially better in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer than sigmoidoscopy.”
 

Real-world, population-based study

NordICC is an ongoing, pragmatic study and is the first randomized trial to quantify the possible benefit of colonoscopy screening on risk of colorectal cancer and related death.

Researchers recruited healthy men and women from registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Most participants came from Poland (54,258), followed by Norway (26,411) and Sweden (3,646). Data from the Netherlands could not be included owing to data protection law.

At baseline, 84,585 participants aged 55-64 years were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (28,220; invited) or to undergo usual care in each participant country (56,365; no invitation or screening).

Any colorectal cancer lesions detected were removed, whenever possible. The primary endpoints were the risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death. The secondary endpoint was death from any cause.
 

‘Modest effectiveness,’ but longer follow-up to give fuller picture

In an editorial that accompanied publication of the study, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, from the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, and Douglas J. Robertson, MD, from White River Junction (Vt.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center, commented on the possible reasons for the low reduction in incident cancer and deaths seen in NordICC.

They pointed out that cohort studies suggest a 40%-69% decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 29%-88% decrease in the risk of death with colonoscopy. However, they noted that “cohort studies probably overestimate the real-world effectiveness of colonoscopy because of the inability to adjust for important factors such as incomplete adherence to testing and the tendency of healthier persons to seek preventive care.”

Referring to Dr. Bretthauer’s point about attendance to screening, Dr. Dominitz and Dr. Robertson added that, in the United States, colonoscopy is the predominant form of screening for colorectal cancer and that in countries where colonoscopy is less established, participation may be very different.

“The actual effectiveness of colonoscopy in populations that are more accepting of colonoscopy could more closely resemble the effectiveness shown in the per-protocol analysis in this trial,” they wrote.

The editorialists also pointed out that the benefits of screening colonoscopy take time to be realized “because the incidence of colorectal cancer is initially increased when presymptomatic cancers are identified.” A repeat and final analysis of the NordICC data is due at 15 years’ follow-up.

In addition, they noted that “colonoscopy is highly operator dependent” and that the adenoma detection rate is variable and affects cancer risk and related mortality.

Given the “modest effectiveness” of screening colonoscopy in the trial, they asserted that, “if the trial truly represents the real-world performance of population-based screening colonoscopy, it might be hard to justify the risk and expense of this form of screening when simpler, less-invasive strategies (e.g., sigmoidoscopy and FIT [fecal immunochemical test]) are available.”

However, they also noted that “additional analyses, including longer follow up and results from other ongoing comparative effectiveness trials, will help us to fully understand the benefits of this test.”

Also commenting on the study was Michiel Maas, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, told this news organization that he agreed that the absolute effect on colorectal cancer risk or colorectal cancer–related death was not as high as expected and may be disappointing.

But Dr. Maas said that “around half of the patients in the study did not undergo colonoscopy, which may have negatively impacted the results.

“An additional factor, which can be influential in colonoscopy studies, is the potential variability in detection rates between operators/endoscopists,” he said.

Looking to the future, Dr. Maas noted that “AI [artificial intelligence] or computer-aided detection can level this playing field in detection rates.

“Nevertheless, this is a very interesting study, which sheds a new light on the efficacy on screening colonoscopies,” he said.

Dr. Bretthauer has relationships with Paion, Cybernet, and the Norwegian Council of Research. Dr. Dominitz is cochair of VA Cooperative Studies Program #577: “Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer” (the CONFIRM Study), which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Robertson is national cochair (with Dr. Dominitz) of the CONFIRM trial and has received personal fees from Freenome outside of the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disturbances in the gut may help explain why some patients with schizophrenia are aggressive whereas others are not, new research suggests. However, at least one expert expressed concerns over the study’s conclusions.

Results from a study of 50 inpatients with schizophrenia showed significantly higher pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation, and leaky gut biomarkers in those with aggression vs. their peers who did not display aggression.

In addition, those with aggression showed less alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community, lower levels of several beneficial gut bacteria, and higher levels of the fecal genera Prevotella.

Six short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and six neurotransmitters were also lower in the aggression vs. no-aggression groups.

“The present study was the first to compare the state of inflammation, oxidation, intestinal microbiota, and metabolites” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression, compared with those who did not show aggression, write the investigators, led by Hongxin Deng, department of psychiatry, Zhumadian (China) Psychiatric Hospital.

“Results indicate pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut phenotypes relating to enteric dysbacteriosis and microbial SCFAs feature the aggression in [individuals with schizophrenia], which provides clues for future microbial-based or anti-inflammatory/oxidative therapies on aggression,” they add.

The findings were published online in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Unknown pathogenesis

Although emerging evidence suggests that schizophrenia “may augment the propensity for aggression incidence about fourfold to sevenfold,” the pathogenesis of aggression “remains largely unknown,” the investigators note.

The same researchers previously found an association between the systemic pro-inflammation response and the onset or severity of aggression in schizophrenia, “possibly caused by leaky gut-induced bacterial translocation.”

The researchers suggest that peripheral cytokines “could cross the blood-brain barrier, thus precipitating changes in mood and behavior through hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.”

However, they note that the pro-inflammation phenotype is “often a synergistic effect of multiple causes.” Of these, chronic pro-oxidative stress has been shown to contribute to aggression onset in intermittent explosive disorder, but this association has rarely been confirmed in patients with schizophrenia.

In addition, increasing evidence points to enteric dysbacteriosis and dysbiosis of intestinal flora metabolites, including SCFAs or neurotransmitters, as potentially “integral parts of psychiatric disorders’ pathophysiology” by changing the state of both oxidative stress and inflammation.

The investigators hypothesized that the systemic pro-inflammation phenotype in aggression-affected schizophrenia cases “involves alterations to gut microbiota and its metabolites, leaky gut, and oxidative stress.” However, the profiles of these variables and their interrelationships have been “poorly investigated” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression.

To fill this gap, they assessed adult psychiatric inpatients with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviors and inpatients with schizophrenia but no aggressive behavior within 1 week before admission (n = 25 per group; mean age, 33.52 years, and 32.88 years, respectively; 68% and 64% women, respectively).

They collected stool samples from each patient and used enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to detect fecal calprotectin protein, an indicator of intestinal inflammation. They also collected fasting peripheral blood samples, using ELISA to detect several biomarkers.

The researchers also used the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to characterize aggressive behaviors and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to characterize psychiatric symptoms.
 

‘Vital role’

Significantly higher biomarkers for systemic pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut were found in the aggression vs the no-aggression group (all P < .05).

After controlling for potential confounders, the researchers also found positive associations between MOAS scores and biomarkers, both serum and fecal.

There were also positive associations between serum 8-hydroxy-20-deoxy-guanosine (8-OH-DG) or 8-isoprostane (8-ISO) and systemic inflammatory biomarkers (all R > 0; P < .05).

In addition, the alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community were lower in the aggression vs. no aggression groups.

When the researchers compared the relative abundance of the top 15 genera composition of intestinal microflora in the two groups, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, and Eubacterium coprostanoligenes were “remarkably reduced” in the group with aggression, whereas the abundance of fecal genera Prevotella was significantly increased (all corrected P < .001).

In the patients who had schizophrenia with aggression, levels of six SCFAs and six neurotransmitters were much lower than in the patients with schizophrenia but no aggression (all P < .05).

Inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression “had dramatically increased serum level of 8-OH-DG (nucleic acid oxidation biomarker) and 8-ISO (lipid oxidation biomarker) than those without, and further correlation analysis also showed positive correlativity between pro-oxidation and systemic pro-inflammation response or aggression severity,” the investigators write.

The findings “collectively suggest the cocontributory role of systemic pro-inflammation and pro-oxidation in the development of aggression” in schizophrenia, they add. “Gut dysbacteriosis with leaky gut seems to play a vital role in the pathophysiology.”
 

Correlation vs. causality

Commenting for this article, Emeran Mayer, MD, distinguished research professor of medicine at the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience and UCLA Brain Gut Microbiome Center, Los Angeles, said that “at first glance, it is interesting that the behavioral trait of aggression but not the diagnosis of schizophrenia showed the differences in markers of systemic inflammation, increased gut permeability, and microbiome parameters.”

However, like many such descriptive studies, the research is flawed by comparing two patient groups and concluding causality between the biomarkers and the behavior traits, added Dr. Mayer, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s shortcomings include its small sample size as well as several confounding factors – particularly diet, sleep, exercise, and stress and anxiety levels – that were not considered, he said. The study also lacked a control group with high levels of aggression but without schizophrenia.

“The observed changes in intestinal permeability, unscientifically referred to as ‘leaky gut,’ as well as the gut microbiome differences, could be secondary to chronically increased sympathetic nervous system activation in the high aggression group,” Dr. Mayer said. “This is an interesting hypothesis which should be discussed and should have been addressed in this study.”

The differences in gut microbial composition and SCFA production “could be secondary to differences in plant-based diet components,” Dr. Mayer speculated, wondering how well dietary intake was controlled.

“Overall, it is an interesting descriptive study, which unfortunately does not contribute significantly to a better understanding of the role of the brain-gut microbiome system in schizophrenic patients,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mayer is a scientific advisory board member of Danone, Axial Therapeutics, Viome, Amare, Mahana Therapeutics, Pendulum, Bloom Biosciences, and APC Microbiome Ireland.

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

Disturbances in the gut may help explain why some patients with schizophrenia are aggressive whereas others are not, new research suggests. However, at least one expert expressed concerns over the study’s conclusions.

Results from a study of 50 inpatients with schizophrenia showed significantly higher pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation, and leaky gut biomarkers in those with aggression vs. their peers who did not display aggression.

In addition, those with aggression showed less alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community, lower levels of several beneficial gut bacteria, and higher levels of the fecal genera Prevotella.

Six short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and six neurotransmitters were also lower in the aggression vs. no-aggression groups.

“The present study was the first to compare the state of inflammation, oxidation, intestinal microbiota, and metabolites” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression, compared with those who did not show aggression, write the investigators, led by Hongxin Deng, department of psychiatry, Zhumadian (China) Psychiatric Hospital.

“Results indicate pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut phenotypes relating to enteric dysbacteriosis and microbial SCFAs feature the aggression in [individuals with schizophrenia], which provides clues for future microbial-based or anti-inflammatory/oxidative therapies on aggression,” they add.

The findings were published online in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Unknown pathogenesis

Although emerging evidence suggests that schizophrenia “may augment the propensity for aggression incidence about fourfold to sevenfold,” the pathogenesis of aggression “remains largely unknown,” the investigators note.

The same researchers previously found an association between the systemic pro-inflammation response and the onset or severity of aggression in schizophrenia, “possibly caused by leaky gut-induced bacterial translocation.”

The researchers suggest that peripheral cytokines “could cross the blood-brain barrier, thus precipitating changes in mood and behavior through hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.”

However, they note that the pro-inflammation phenotype is “often a synergistic effect of multiple causes.” Of these, chronic pro-oxidative stress has been shown to contribute to aggression onset in intermittent explosive disorder, but this association has rarely been confirmed in patients with schizophrenia.

In addition, increasing evidence points to enteric dysbacteriosis and dysbiosis of intestinal flora metabolites, including SCFAs or neurotransmitters, as potentially “integral parts of psychiatric disorders’ pathophysiology” by changing the state of both oxidative stress and inflammation.

The investigators hypothesized that the systemic pro-inflammation phenotype in aggression-affected schizophrenia cases “involves alterations to gut microbiota and its metabolites, leaky gut, and oxidative stress.” However, the profiles of these variables and their interrelationships have been “poorly investigated” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression.

To fill this gap, they assessed adult psychiatric inpatients with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviors and inpatients with schizophrenia but no aggressive behavior within 1 week before admission (n = 25 per group; mean age, 33.52 years, and 32.88 years, respectively; 68% and 64% women, respectively).

They collected stool samples from each patient and used enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to detect fecal calprotectin protein, an indicator of intestinal inflammation. They also collected fasting peripheral blood samples, using ELISA to detect several biomarkers.

The researchers also used the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to characterize aggressive behaviors and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to characterize psychiatric symptoms.
 

‘Vital role’

Significantly higher biomarkers for systemic pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut were found in the aggression vs the no-aggression group (all P < .05).

After controlling for potential confounders, the researchers also found positive associations between MOAS scores and biomarkers, both serum and fecal.

There were also positive associations between serum 8-hydroxy-20-deoxy-guanosine (8-OH-DG) or 8-isoprostane (8-ISO) and systemic inflammatory biomarkers (all R > 0; P < .05).

In addition, the alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community were lower in the aggression vs. no aggression groups.

When the researchers compared the relative abundance of the top 15 genera composition of intestinal microflora in the two groups, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, and Eubacterium coprostanoligenes were “remarkably reduced” in the group with aggression, whereas the abundance of fecal genera Prevotella was significantly increased (all corrected P < .001).

In the patients who had schizophrenia with aggression, levels of six SCFAs and six neurotransmitters were much lower than in the patients with schizophrenia but no aggression (all P < .05).

Inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression “had dramatically increased serum level of 8-OH-DG (nucleic acid oxidation biomarker) and 8-ISO (lipid oxidation biomarker) than those without, and further correlation analysis also showed positive correlativity between pro-oxidation and systemic pro-inflammation response or aggression severity,” the investigators write.

The findings “collectively suggest the cocontributory role of systemic pro-inflammation and pro-oxidation in the development of aggression” in schizophrenia, they add. “Gut dysbacteriosis with leaky gut seems to play a vital role in the pathophysiology.”
 

Correlation vs. causality

Commenting for this article, Emeran Mayer, MD, distinguished research professor of medicine at the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience and UCLA Brain Gut Microbiome Center, Los Angeles, said that “at first glance, it is interesting that the behavioral trait of aggression but not the diagnosis of schizophrenia showed the differences in markers of systemic inflammation, increased gut permeability, and microbiome parameters.”

However, like many such descriptive studies, the research is flawed by comparing two patient groups and concluding causality between the biomarkers and the behavior traits, added Dr. Mayer, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s shortcomings include its small sample size as well as several confounding factors – particularly diet, sleep, exercise, and stress and anxiety levels – that were not considered, he said. The study also lacked a control group with high levels of aggression but without schizophrenia.

“The observed changes in intestinal permeability, unscientifically referred to as ‘leaky gut,’ as well as the gut microbiome differences, could be secondary to chronically increased sympathetic nervous system activation in the high aggression group,” Dr. Mayer said. “This is an interesting hypothesis which should be discussed and should have been addressed in this study.”

The differences in gut microbial composition and SCFA production “could be secondary to differences in plant-based diet components,” Dr. Mayer speculated, wondering how well dietary intake was controlled.

“Overall, it is an interesting descriptive study, which unfortunately does not contribute significantly to a better understanding of the role of the brain-gut microbiome system in schizophrenic patients,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mayer is a scientific advisory board member of Danone, Axial Therapeutics, Viome, Amare, Mahana Therapeutics, Pendulum, Bloom Biosciences, and APC Microbiome Ireland.

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

Disturbances in the gut may help explain why some patients with schizophrenia are aggressive whereas others are not, new research suggests. However, at least one expert expressed concerns over the study’s conclusions.

Results from a study of 50 inpatients with schizophrenia showed significantly higher pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation, and leaky gut biomarkers in those with aggression vs. their peers who did not display aggression.

In addition, those with aggression showed less alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community, lower levels of several beneficial gut bacteria, and higher levels of the fecal genera Prevotella.

Six short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and six neurotransmitters were also lower in the aggression vs. no-aggression groups.

“The present study was the first to compare the state of inflammation, oxidation, intestinal microbiota, and metabolites” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression, compared with those who did not show aggression, write the investigators, led by Hongxin Deng, department of psychiatry, Zhumadian (China) Psychiatric Hospital.

“Results indicate pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut phenotypes relating to enteric dysbacteriosis and microbial SCFAs feature the aggression in [individuals with schizophrenia], which provides clues for future microbial-based or anti-inflammatory/oxidative therapies on aggression,” they add.

The findings were published online in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Unknown pathogenesis

Although emerging evidence suggests that schizophrenia “may augment the propensity for aggression incidence about fourfold to sevenfold,” the pathogenesis of aggression “remains largely unknown,” the investigators note.

The same researchers previously found an association between the systemic pro-inflammation response and the onset or severity of aggression in schizophrenia, “possibly caused by leaky gut-induced bacterial translocation.”

The researchers suggest that peripheral cytokines “could cross the blood-brain barrier, thus precipitating changes in mood and behavior through hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.”

However, they note that the pro-inflammation phenotype is “often a synergistic effect of multiple causes.” Of these, chronic pro-oxidative stress has been shown to contribute to aggression onset in intermittent explosive disorder, but this association has rarely been confirmed in patients with schizophrenia.

In addition, increasing evidence points to enteric dysbacteriosis and dysbiosis of intestinal flora metabolites, including SCFAs or neurotransmitters, as potentially “integral parts of psychiatric disorders’ pathophysiology” by changing the state of both oxidative stress and inflammation.

The investigators hypothesized that the systemic pro-inflammation phenotype in aggression-affected schizophrenia cases “involves alterations to gut microbiota and its metabolites, leaky gut, and oxidative stress.” However, the profiles of these variables and their interrelationships have been “poorly investigated” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression.

To fill this gap, they assessed adult psychiatric inpatients with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviors and inpatients with schizophrenia but no aggressive behavior within 1 week before admission (n = 25 per group; mean age, 33.52 years, and 32.88 years, respectively; 68% and 64% women, respectively).

They collected stool samples from each patient and used enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to detect fecal calprotectin protein, an indicator of intestinal inflammation. They also collected fasting peripheral blood samples, using ELISA to detect several biomarkers.

The researchers also used the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to characterize aggressive behaviors and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to characterize psychiatric symptoms.
 

‘Vital role’

Significantly higher biomarkers for systemic pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut were found in the aggression vs the no-aggression group (all P < .05).

After controlling for potential confounders, the researchers also found positive associations between MOAS scores and biomarkers, both serum and fecal.

There were also positive associations between serum 8-hydroxy-20-deoxy-guanosine (8-OH-DG) or 8-isoprostane (8-ISO) and systemic inflammatory biomarkers (all R > 0; P < .05).

In addition, the alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community were lower in the aggression vs. no aggression groups.

When the researchers compared the relative abundance of the top 15 genera composition of intestinal microflora in the two groups, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, and Eubacterium coprostanoligenes were “remarkably reduced” in the group with aggression, whereas the abundance of fecal genera Prevotella was significantly increased (all corrected P < .001).

In the patients who had schizophrenia with aggression, levels of six SCFAs and six neurotransmitters were much lower than in the patients with schizophrenia but no aggression (all P < .05).

Inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression “had dramatically increased serum level of 8-OH-DG (nucleic acid oxidation biomarker) and 8-ISO (lipid oxidation biomarker) than those without, and further correlation analysis also showed positive correlativity between pro-oxidation and systemic pro-inflammation response or aggression severity,” the investigators write.

The findings “collectively suggest the cocontributory role of systemic pro-inflammation and pro-oxidation in the development of aggression” in schizophrenia, they add. “Gut dysbacteriosis with leaky gut seems to play a vital role in the pathophysiology.”
 

Correlation vs. causality

Commenting for this article, Emeran Mayer, MD, distinguished research professor of medicine at the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience and UCLA Brain Gut Microbiome Center, Los Angeles, said that “at first glance, it is interesting that the behavioral trait of aggression but not the diagnosis of schizophrenia showed the differences in markers of systemic inflammation, increased gut permeability, and microbiome parameters.”

However, like many such descriptive studies, the research is flawed by comparing two patient groups and concluding causality between the biomarkers and the behavior traits, added Dr. Mayer, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s shortcomings include its small sample size as well as several confounding factors – particularly diet, sleep, exercise, and stress and anxiety levels – that were not considered, he said. The study also lacked a control group with high levels of aggression but without schizophrenia.

“The observed changes in intestinal permeability, unscientifically referred to as ‘leaky gut,’ as well as the gut microbiome differences, could be secondary to chronically increased sympathetic nervous system activation in the high aggression group,” Dr. Mayer said. “This is an interesting hypothesis which should be discussed and should have been addressed in this study.”

The differences in gut microbial composition and SCFA production “could be secondary to differences in plant-based diet components,” Dr. Mayer speculated, wondering how well dietary intake was controlled.

“Overall, it is an interesting descriptive study, which unfortunately does not contribute significantly to a better understanding of the role of the brain-gut microbiome system in schizophrenic patients,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mayer is a scientific advisory board member of Danone, Axial Therapeutics, Viome, Amare, Mahana Therapeutics, Pendulum, Bloom Biosciences, and APC Microbiome Ireland.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.