Federal Practitioner

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

When Michael McGrath, MD, medical director of the Ohana Luxury Alcohol Rehab on the Big Island of Hawaii, trains primary care physicians, he tells them that talking with patients about substance use disorders is like having a stressful, weird conversation. But it’s a courageous one, because of the stigma associated with drug and alcohol disorders.

Dr. McGrath starts the conversation with patients by expressing that physicians now understand that addiction is a disease – one for which the patient isn’t responsible. He explains that there’s both a genetic and a nature/nurture component of the disorder and assures them that he won’t judge or abandon them but rather help them find treatment and make sure they get on the path to wellness.

It’s all too common to see patients with a substance use disorder in today’s primary care population. According to Medscape’s Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues Report 2022, 42% of physicians see patients with a substance use disorder often in their practices. However, identifying substance use disorders and treating or referring patients for them is a complex problem.

According to the Recovery Research Institute, a leading nonprofit orgnaization from Massachusetts General Hospital dedicated to advancing addiction treatment and recovery, about 20 million people in the United States suffer from a substance use disorder. More than half (54%) need assistance with their recovery. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that substance abuse and addiction cost society more than $740 billion annually in workplace productivity, health care, and crime-related expenses.

Despite the challenges, physician experts provide advice on how to treat and help patients who have substance use disorders more effectively.
 

A courageous conversation

Often, the primary care physician or emergency physician is the first to be aware of a patient’s problem with a substance or a relapse. In many communities where shortages of specialized physicians and nonphysician treatment options for substance use disorders aren’t available, there’s usually limited time and resources to help patients with these disorders.

Patients often sense doctors are rushed and may not be interested in hearing about their drug or alcohol problems. Reddit threads are filled with stories like that of user “Cyralek,” who say that the two doctors they’ve seen since quitting drinking didn’t show much interest in the problem beyond ordering liver function tests.

In a nationwide study by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, 80% of patients who met the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder visited a doctor, hospital, or clinic for some reason over the past year. Only 1 in 10 were encouraged to cut back on drinking or receive any form of treatment or referral for substance misuse.

Emma Gordon, founder of a salvage yard in Los Angeles, says she used to abuse alcohol and that it affected every aspect of her life. Her brother tried to intervene, but nothing worked until she finally told a physician. “I admitted my problem and felt incredibly calm when she reacted as though it was all normal. I believe that was my first step to becoming a better me. I was thankful I had gone to see a doctor,” says Ms. Gordon.

Though physicians in primary care may not have more than a 15-minute appointment slot, seizing the opportunity to initiate a substance use disorder conversation when warranted is crucial, says Dr. McGrath. The CAGE-AID screening tool, which includes questions such as, “Have you ever felt you ought to cut down on your drinking or drug use?” is an excellent starter. Dr. McGrath also advises primary care clinicians to lower the threshold of concern to a single positive answer rather than several.

Doctors aren’t necessarily rewarded for the time it takes to develop a rapport with patients and to have a conversation that leads to asking, “How much are you drinking?”

“The system in primary care isn’t set up that way,” said Lucy McBride, MD, an internist in Washington, D.C.
 

Patients don’t often ask for help

In a perfect world, patients struggling with a substance use disorder would present with a request to discontinue using drugs or alcohol, as Ms. Gordon did. While that does happen sometimes, the onus is on the physician to screen for substance misuse.

“Remember, this is the disease that tells you that you don’t have a disease,” Dr. McGrath says. He also says that the use of screening instruments is a bare minimum. When patients are in the throes of a substance use disorder, the prefrontal cortex doesn’t work effectively. Dr. McGrath says there’s an alteration of consciousness so that the patient doesn’t realize the extent of the disease. “Often simply asking the patient is falling far short. It’s the biggest mistake I see,” he says.

Self-reporting from the patient may be unreliable. “That would be like a patient coming in and saying, ‘My blood sugar is 700, and I want you to give me some insulin,’ ” Dr. McGrath says. Instead, clinicians in the field need a more objective measurement.

Perhaps that means asking the patient to bring in a significant other at the next visit or digging deeper into the conversation about alcohol and drugs and their role in the patient’s life. And to really have an impact, Dr. McGrath said, the clinician should talk to the patient about referral for further evaluation.

“You have to get collateral history; that’s the goldmine for the clinician,” Dr. McGrath says. “It may take a few more minutes or mean talking to a family member, but it can make the difference between life and death.”

“I am thankful to my doctor who discussed this [substance use disorder] with me in detail,” says Ronald Williams, another Angeleno who braved the difficult discussion with his doctor. Mr. Williams says his doctor explained it in a good way and that if the doctor hadn’t guided him empathetically, the conversation might not have gone as well.

“We check patients’ cholesterol. We get them on the scale. But there is no blood test to discover how much they’re drinking, no PCR to test for social anxiety, no MRI that distinguishes between their recreational marijuana use and marijuana abuse,” said Dr. McBride.
 

Check the prescription drugs they’re taking

Another thing Dr. McGrath recommends is for primary care physicians to check the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) database in their state to help be alerted to a patient with a substance use disorder. The CDC’s PMPD guidelines recommend that the clinician check on a patient every 3 months or each time they write an opioid prescription. Assigning a staff member or a nurse to check the database can help uncover a history of doctor-shopping or use of controlled substances.

“There’s been a lot of times I’ve gone on self-report, and I’ve been bamboozled because I don’t have a truth-o-meter, and I can’t tell when a patient is telling the truth,” says Dr. McGrath.

He is also a huge proponent of point-of-service screening. Patients can urinate in a cup that has amino assay strips on the side, like an immediate COVID-19 test, or they can spit into a saliva cup. “It’s really beneficial for the patient and the clinician to know right then at the point of service if there is a substance present and what it is,” Dr. McGrath said.

It can be part of the larger conversation once a problem with substances has been uncovered. The clinician can say something like, “Let’s see where you are right now today as far as what you have in your system and where we should go from here.”
 

Other barriers physicians face

Many physicians may feel unprepared to meet the needs of patients with substance use disorders or prescribe medication that blunts cravings and reduces the urge to drink without the need for special training. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that only 1.6% of people with a substance use disorder were prescribed medication to help control it.

In the largest study on how primary care physicians address substance use disorders, fewer than 20% described themselves as very prepared to identify alcoholism or illegal drug use. Since most patients prefer to seek treatment from their primary care doctor, at least initially, not being prepared is a problem.

Although referral for specialty addiction treatment is recommended for patients with severe substance use disorders, primary care physicians with appropriate experience, training, and support can provide some of these services. “In an ideal world I wouldn’t have to refer patients out, since they’re much more likely to talk with their primary care provider about sensitive, intimate topics,” says Dr. McBride.
 

The issue of reimbursement

Billing for substance use disorder counseling or coordination of care is still challenging, and how to get compensated remains a conundrum for many physicians. Reimbursement may not adequately compensate providers for the additional time and staff needed, but some changes have been positive.

For instance, the American Society for Addiction Medicine reports that in 2022, Medicare expanded the physician fee schedule for opioid and SUD counseling to include reimbursement for telemedicine services.

Learning the billing CPT codes for various addiction treatments and counseling, or having a billing service that understands them, is crucial to reimbursement and keeping revenue running smoothly.

At the very least, developing relationships with treatment centers and specialists in the community can help physicians with referrals and with determining the level of care needed. Physicians can help facilitate that care with routine reassessment and frequent follow-ups, as well as by requesting reports from the treatment facility, continuing treatment of medical conditions, and reinforcing the importance of continued substance use disorder treatment.

Dr. McBride says that primary care physicians can and should make their office a safe, blame-free medical home for patients with substance use disorders. “Patients also need to understand they should bring their whole selves to the doctor – to talk about their sleep, what they consume, their depression, and not just about alcohol, but their relationship with it, and other substances,” she says.

“There needs to be time to talk about it.”

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

When Michael McGrath, MD, medical director of the Ohana Luxury Alcohol Rehab on the Big Island of Hawaii, trains primary care physicians, he tells them that talking with patients about substance use disorders is like having a stressful, weird conversation. But it’s a courageous one, because of the stigma associated with drug and alcohol disorders.

Dr. McGrath starts the conversation with patients by expressing that physicians now understand that addiction is a disease – one for which the patient isn’t responsible. He explains that there’s both a genetic and a nature/nurture component of the disorder and assures them that he won’t judge or abandon them but rather help them find treatment and make sure they get on the path to wellness.

It’s all too common to see patients with a substance use disorder in today’s primary care population. According to Medscape’s Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues Report 2022, 42% of physicians see patients with a substance use disorder often in their practices. However, identifying substance use disorders and treating or referring patients for them is a complex problem.

According to the Recovery Research Institute, a leading nonprofit orgnaization from Massachusetts General Hospital dedicated to advancing addiction treatment and recovery, about 20 million people in the United States suffer from a substance use disorder. More than half (54%) need assistance with their recovery. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that substance abuse and addiction cost society more than $740 billion annually in workplace productivity, health care, and crime-related expenses.

Despite the challenges, physician experts provide advice on how to treat and help patients who have substance use disorders more effectively.
 

A courageous conversation

Often, the primary care physician or emergency physician is the first to be aware of a patient’s problem with a substance or a relapse. In many communities where shortages of specialized physicians and nonphysician treatment options for substance use disorders aren’t available, there’s usually limited time and resources to help patients with these disorders.

Patients often sense doctors are rushed and may not be interested in hearing about their drug or alcohol problems. Reddit threads are filled with stories like that of user “Cyralek,” who say that the two doctors they’ve seen since quitting drinking didn’t show much interest in the problem beyond ordering liver function tests.

In a nationwide study by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, 80% of patients who met the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder visited a doctor, hospital, or clinic for some reason over the past year. Only 1 in 10 were encouraged to cut back on drinking or receive any form of treatment or referral for substance misuse.

Emma Gordon, founder of a salvage yard in Los Angeles, says she used to abuse alcohol and that it affected every aspect of her life. Her brother tried to intervene, but nothing worked until she finally told a physician. “I admitted my problem and felt incredibly calm when she reacted as though it was all normal. I believe that was my first step to becoming a better me. I was thankful I had gone to see a doctor,” says Ms. Gordon.

Though physicians in primary care may not have more than a 15-minute appointment slot, seizing the opportunity to initiate a substance use disorder conversation when warranted is crucial, says Dr. McGrath. The CAGE-AID screening tool, which includes questions such as, “Have you ever felt you ought to cut down on your drinking or drug use?” is an excellent starter. Dr. McGrath also advises primary care clinicians to lower the threshold of concern to a single positive answer rather than several.

Doctors aren’t necessarily rewarded for the time it takes to develop a rapport with patients and to have a conversation that leads to asking, “How much are you drinking?”

“The system in primary care isn’t set up that way,” said Lucy McBride, MD, an internist in Washington, D.C.
 

Patients don’t often ask for help

In a perfect world, patients struggling with a substance use disorder would present with a request to discontinue using drugs or alcohol, as Ms. Gordon did. While that does happen sometimes, the onus is on the physician to screen for substance misuse.

“Remember, this is the disease that tells you that you don’t have a disease,” Dr. McGrath says. He also says that the use of screening instruments is a bare minimum. When patients are in the throes of a substance use disorder, the prefrontal cortex doesn’t work effectively. Dr. McGrath says there’s an alteration of consciousness so that the patient doesn’t realize the extent of the disease. “Often simply asking the patient is falling far short. It’s the biggest mistake I see,” he says.

Self-reporting from the patient may be unreliable. “That would be like a patient coming in and saying, ‘My blood sugar is 700, and I want you to give me some insulin,’ ” Dr. McGrath says. Instead, clinicians in the field need a more objective measurement.

Perhaps that means asking the patient to bring in a significant other at the next visit or digging deeper into the conversation about alcohol and drugs and their role in the patient’s life. And to really have an impact, Dr. McGrath said, the clinician should talk to the patient about referral for further evaluation.

“You have to get collateral history; that’s the goldmine for the clinician,” Dr. McGrath says. “It may take a few more minutes or mean talking to a family member, but it can make the difference between life and death.”

“I am thankful to my doctor who discussed this [substance use disorder] with me in detail,” says Ronald Williams, another Angeleno who braved the difficult discussion with his doctor. Mr. Williams says his doctor explained it in a good way and that if the doctor hadn’t guided him empathetically, the conversation might not have gone as well.

“We check patients’ cholesterol. We get them on the scale. But there is no blood test to discover how much they’re drinking, no PCR to test for social anxiety, no MRI that distinguishes between their recreational marijuana use and marijuana abuse,” said Dr. McBride.
 

Check the prescription drugs they’re taking

Another thing Dr. McGrath recommends is for primary care physicians to check the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) database in their state to help be alerted to a patient with a substance use disorder. The CDC’s PMPD guidelines recommend that the clinician check on a patient every 3 months or each time they write an opioid prescription. Assigning a staff member or a nurse to check the database can help uncover a history of doctor-shopping or use of controlled substances.

“There’s been a lot of times I’ve gone on self-report, and I’ve been bamboozled because I don’t have a truth-o-meter, and I can’t tell when a patient is telling the truth,” says Dr. McGrath.

He is also a huge proponent of point-of-service screening. Patients can urinate in a cup that has amino assay strips on the side, like an immediate COVID-19 test, or they can spit into a saliva cup. “It’s really beneficial for the patient and the clinician to know right then at the point of service if there is a substance present and what it is,” Dr. McGrath said.

It can be part of the larger conversation once a problem with substances has been uncovered. The clinician can say something like, “Let’s see where you are right now today as far as what you have in your system and where we should go from here.”
 

Other barriers physicians face

Many physicians may feel unprepared to meet the needs of patients with substance use disorders or prescribe medication that blunts cravings and reduces the urge to drink without the need for special training. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that only 1.6% of people with a substance use disorder were prescribed medication to help control it.

In the largest study on how primary care physicians address substance use disorders, fewer than 20% described themselves as very prepared to identify alcoholism or illegal drug use. Since most patients prefer to seek treatment from their primary care doctor, at least initially, not being prepared is a problem.

Although referral for specialty addiction treatment is recommended for patients with severe substance use disorders, primary care physicians with appropriate experience, training, and support can provide some of these services. “In an ideal world I wouldn’t have to refer patients out, since they’re much more likely to talk with their primary care provider about sensitive, intimate topics,” says Dr. McBride.
 

The issue of reimbursement

Billing for substance use disorder counseling or coordination of care is still challenging, and how to get compensated remains a conundrum for many physicians. Reimbursement may not adequately compensate providers for the additional time and staff needed, but some changes have been positive.

For instance, the American Society for Addiction Medicine reports that in 2022, Medicare expanded the physician fee schedule for opioid and SUD counseling to include reimbursement for telemedicine services.

Learning the billing CPT codes for various addiction treatments and counseling, or having a billing service that understands them, is crucial to reimbursement and keeping revenue running smoothly.

At the very least, developing relationships with treatment centers and specialists in the community can help physicians with referrals and with determining the level of care needed. Physicians can help facilitate that care with routine reassessment and frequent follow-ups, as well as by requesting reports from the treatment facility, continuing treatment of medical conditions, and reinforcing the importance of continued substance use disorder treatment.

Dr. McBride says that primary care physicians can and should make their office a safe, blame-free medical home for patients with substance use disorders. “Patients also need to understand they should bring their whole selves to the doctor – to talk about their sleep, what they consume, their depression, and not just about alcohol, but their relationship with it, and other substances,” she says.

“There needs to be time to talk about it.”

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

When Michael McGrath, MD, medical director of the Ohana Luxury Alcohol Rehab on the Big Island of Hawaii, trains primary care physicians, he tells them that talking with patients about substance use disorders is like having a stressful, weird conversation. But it’s a courageous one, because of the stigma associated with drug and alcohol disorders.

Dr. McGrath starts the conversation with patients by expressing that physicians now understand that addiction is a disease – one for which the patient isn’t responsible. He explains that there’s both a genetic and a nature/nurture component of the disorder and assures them that he won’t judge or abandon them but rather help them find treatment and make sure they get on the path to wellness.

It’s all too common to see patients with a substance use disorder in today’s primary care population. According to Medscape’s Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues Report 2022, 42% of physicians see patients with a substance use disorder often in their practices. However, identifying substance use disorders and treating or referring patients for them is a complex problem.

According to the Recovery Research Institute, a leading nonprofit orgnaization from Massachusetts General Hospital dedicated to advancing addiction treatment and recovery, about 20 million people in the United States suffer from a substance use disorder. More than half (54%) need assistance with their recovery. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that substance abuse and addiction cost society more than $740 billion annually in workplace productivity, health care, and crime-related expenses.

Despite the challenges, physician experts provide advice on how to treat and help patients who have substance use disorders more effectively.
 

A courageous conversation

Often, the primary care physician or emergency physician is the first to be aware of a patient’s problem with a substance or a relapse. In many communities where shortages of specialized physicians and nonphysician treatment options for substance use disorders aren’t available, there’s usually limited time and resources to help patients with these disorders.

Patients often sense doctors are rushed and may not be interested in hearing about their drug or alcohol problems. Reddit threads are filled with stories like that of user “Cyralek,” who say that the two doctors they’ve seen since quitting drinking didn’t show much interest in the problem beyond ordering liver function tests.

In a nationwide study by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, 80% of patients who met the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder visited a doctor, hospital, or clinic for some reason over the past year. Only 1 in 10 were encouraged to cut back on drinking or receive any form of treatment or referral for substance misuse.

Emma Gordon, founder of a salvage yard in Los Angeles, says she used to abuse alcohol and that it affected every aspect of her life. Her brother tried to intervene, but nothing worked until she finally told a physician. “I admitted my problem and felt incredibly calm when she reacted as though it was all normal. I believe that was my first step to becoming a better me. I was thankful I had gone to see a doctor,” says Ms. Gordon.

Though physicians in primary care may not have more than a 15-minute appointment slot, seizing the opportunity to initiate a substance use disorder conversation when warranted is crucial, says Dr. McGrath. The CAGE-AID screening tool, which includes questions such as, “Have you ever felt you ought to cut down on your drinking or drug use?” is an excellent starter. Dr. McGrath also advises primary care clinicians to lower the threshold of concern to a single positive answer rather than several.

Doctors aren’t necessarily rewarded for the time it takes to develop a rapport with patients and to have a conversation that leads to asking, “How much are you drinking?”

“The system in primary care isn’t set up that way,” said Lucy McBride, MD, an internist in Washington, D.C.
 

Patients don’t often ask for help

In a perfect world, patients struggling with a substance use disorder would present with a request to discontinue using drugs or alcohol, as Ms. Gordon did. While that does happen sometimes, the onus is on the physician to screen for substance misuse.

“Remember, this is the disease that tells you that you don’t have a disease,” Dr. McGrath says. He also says that the use of screening instruments is a bare minimum. When patients are in the throes of a substance use disorder, the prefrontal cortex doesn’t work effectively. Dr. McGrath says there’s an alteration of consciousness so that the patient doesn’t realize the extent of the disease. “Often simply asking the patient is falling far short. It’s the biggest mistake I see,” he says.

Self-reporting from the patient may be unreliable. “That would be like a patient coming in and saying, ‘My blood sugar is 700, and I want you to give me some insulin,’ ” Dr. McGrath says. Instead, clinicians in the field need a more objective measurement.

Perhaps that means asking the patient to bring in a significant other at the next visit or digging deeper into the conversation about alcohol and drugs and their role in the patient’s life. And to really have an impact, Dr. McGrath said, the clinician should talk to the patient about referral for further evaluation.

“You have to get collateral history; that’s the goldmine for the clinician,” Dr. McGrath says. “It may take a few more minutes or mean talking to a family member, but it can make the difference between life and death.”

“I am thankful to my doctor who discussed this [substance use disorder] with me in detail,” says Ronald Williams, another Angeleno who braved the difficult discussion with his doctor. Mr. Williams says his doctor explained it in a good way and that if the doctor hadn’t guided him empathetically, the conversation might not have gone as well.

“We check patients’ cholesterol. We get them on the scale. But there is no blood test to discover how much they’re drinking, no PCR to test for social anxiety, no MRI that distinguishes between their recreational marijuana use and marijuana abuse,” said Dr. McBride.
 

Check the prescription drugs they’re taking

Another thing Dr. McGrath recommends is for primary care physicians to check the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) database in their state to help be alerted to a patient with a substance use disorder. The CDC’s PMPD guidelines recommend that the clinician check on a patient every 3 months or each time they write an opioid prescription. Assigning a staff member or a nurse to check the database can help uncover a history of doctor-shopping or use of controlled substances.

“There’s been a lot of times I’ve gone on self-report, and I’ve been bamboozled because I don’t have a truth-o-meter, and I can’t tell when a patient is telling the truth,” says Dr. McGrath.

He is also a huge proponent of point-of-service screening. Patients can urinate in a cup that has amino assay strips on the side, like an immediate COVID-19 test, or they can spit into a saliva cup. “It’s really beneficial for the patient and the clinician to know right then at the point of service if there is a substance present and what it is,” Dr. McGrath said.

It can be part of the larger conversation once a problem with substances has been uncovered. The clinician can say something like, “Let’s see where you are right now today as far as what you have in your system and where we should go from here.”
 

Other barriers physicians face

Many physicians may feel unprepared to meet the needs of patients with substance use disorders or prescribe medication that blunts cravings and reduces the urge to drink without the need for special training. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that only 1.6% of people with a substance use disorder were prescribed medication to help control it.

In the largest study on how primary care physicians address substance use disorders, fewer than 20% described themselves as very prepared to identify alcoholism or illegal drug use. Since most patients prefer to seek treatment from their primary care doctor, at least initially, not being prepared is a problem.

Although referral for specialty addiction treatment is recommended for patients with severe substance use disorders, primary care physicians with appropriate experience, training, and support can provide some of these services. “In an ideal world I wouldn’t have to refer patients out, since they’re much more likely to talk with their primary care provider about sensitive, intimate topics,” says Dr. McBride.
 

The issue of reimbursement

Billing for substance use disorder counseling or coordination of care is still challenging, and how to get compensated remains a conundrum for many physicians. Reimbursement may not adequately compensate providers for the additional time and staff needed, but some changes have been positive.

For instance, the American Society for Addiction Medicine reports that in 2022, Medicare expanded the physician fee schedule for opioid and SUD counseling to include reimbursement for telemedicine services.

Learning the billing CPT codes for various addiction treatments and counseling, or having a billing service that understands them, is crucial to reimbursement and keeping revenue running smoothly.

At the very least, developing relationships with treatment centers and specialists in the community can help physicians with referrals and with determining the level of care needed. Physicians can help facilitate that care with routine reassessment and frequent follow-ups, as well as by requesting reports from the treatment facility, continuing treatment of medical conditions, and reinforcing the importance of continued substance use disorder treatment.

Dr. McBride says that primary care physicians can and should make their office a safe, blame-free medical home for patients with substance use disorders. “Patients also need to understand they should bring their whole selves to the doctor – to talk about their sleep, what they consume, their depression, and not just about alcohol, but their relationship with it, and other substances,” she says.

“There needs to be time to talk about it.”

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

Federal authorities have reached an agreement with the Indiana State Nursing Board regarding claims the board violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against nurses with opioid use disorder (OUD), according to a statement released Sept. 1.

In March, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the findings of its investigation, stating that the board “violated the ADA by prohibiting nurses who take medication to treat OUD from participating in the Indiana State Nursing Assistance Program [ISNAP].”

ISNAP rehabilitates and monitors nurses with substance use disorders, and the nursing board contracts with vendors to administer the program. Nurses seeking recovery must typically enroll in ISNAP and complete the 1-year program to maintain an active nursing license or have a license reinstated.

Following the investigation, the nursing board was instructed to implement corrective measures, such as revising policies and handbooks and training nursing board staff and vendors on ADA guidelines and nondiscriminatory practices.

The state’s professional organization for nurses said the remediation efforts will help nurses who are struggling with opioid addiction.

Katherine Feley, DNP, RN, chief executive officer of the Indiana State Nurses Association, told this news organization, “Allowing nurses who take medication to treat OUD to remain on their medication when participating in [ISNAP] will avoid making nurses choose between their health and their profession. This improvement will increase access to treatment resources, enabling more nurses to complete treatment and progress toward a safe return to work.”

The DOJ opened an investigation after receiving a complaint from a nurse in which she alleged that she was denied participation in ISNAP because of her use of prescription medication for OUD. In 2013, while participating in a methadone maintenance program, the nurse was told she had to taper off the medication because ISNAP utilizes an “abstinence-based” model. Because of these restrictions, she could not complete the program, and her nursing license was suspended in late 2014.

In 2016, her physician prescribed a new medication, buprenorphine, and the nurse attempted to enroll in ISNAP again. The program vendor instructed her to taper off the drug within 3 months of enrollment, something her physician believed “would come with a significant risk of relapse [and possibly] death.” The nurse was unable to qualify for reinstatement of her license.

As part of the settlement, the nursing board has agreed to pay a total of $70,000 in damages to the complainant and report compliance with new guidelines to the DOJ every 6 months.

The DOJ says ISNAP’s OUD abstinence policy does not conform with the state’s statute, which mandates that substance abuse rehabilitation services be provided for nurses.

“Indiana may not deny individuals lifesaving medications, including medications that treat [OUD], based on stereotypes and misinformation,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said of the settlement. “Requiring nurses to stop taking prescribed medication as a condition of maintaining a nursing license violates the ADA and not only creates barriers to recovery but inappropriately limits employment opportunities based on disability.”

In April, the DOJ issued guidance for protecting the civil rights of people with OUD under the ADA to ensure that individuals seeking treatment or recovery can continue participating in society and the workplace.

“The opioid epidemic has greatly impacted professionals and families of all walks of life, and Indiana nurses have the right to seek medically approved treatment for [OUD] under federal law,” U.S. Attorney Zachary A. Myers, of the Southern District of Indiana, said of the settlement. “Following the Justice Department’s findings and the parties’ settlement agreement, Indiana must now enact policies to ensure that Hoosier nurses will not be forced to choose between their recovery and their livelihoods.”

Under the terms of the agreement, the nursing board must allow nurses who are taking OUD medication to participate in ISNAP when the medication is prescribed by a licensed practitioner as part of a medically necessary treatment plan and is incorporated into a recovery monitoring agreement.

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

Federal authorities have reached an agreement with the Indiana State Nursing Board regarding claims the board violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against nurses with opioid use disorder (OUD), according to a statement released Sept. 1.

In March, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the findings of its investigation, stating that the board “violated the ADA by prohibiting nurses who take medication to treat OUD from participating in the Indiana State Nursing Assistance Program [ISNAP].”

ISNAP rehabilitates and monitors nurses with substance use disorders, and the nursing board contracts with vendors to administer the program. Nurses seeking recovery must typically enroll in ISNAP and complete the 1-year program to maintain an active nursing license or have a license reinstated.

Following the investigation, the nursing board was instructed to implement corrective measures, such as revising policies and handbooks and training nursing board staff and vendors on ADA guidelines and nondiscriminatory practices.

The state’s professional organization for nurses said the remediation efforts will help nurses who are struggling with opioid addiction.

Katherine Feley, DNP, RN, chief executive officer of the Indiana State Nurses Association, told this news organization, “Allowing nurses who take medication to treat OUD to remain on their medication when participating in [ISNAP] will avoid making nurses choose between their health and their profession. This improvement will increase access to treatment resources, enabling more nurses to complete treatment and progress toward a safe return to work.”

The DOJ opened an investigation after receiving a complaint from a nurse in which she alleged that she was denied participation in ISNAP because of her use of prescription medication for OUD. In 2013, while participating in a methadone maintenance program, the nurse was told she had to taper off the medication because ISNAP utilizes an “abstinence-based” model. Because of these restrictions, she could not complete the program, and her nursing license was suspended in late 2014.

In 2016, her physician prescribed a new medication, buprenorphine, and the nurse attempted to enroll in ISNAP again. The program vendor instructed her to taper off the drug within 3 months of enrollment, something her physician believed “would come with a significant risk of relapse [and possibly] death.” The nurse was unable to qualify for reinstatement of her license.

As part of the settlement, the nursing board has agreed to pay a total of $70,000 in damages to the complainant and report compliance with new guidelines to the DOJ every 6 months.

The DOJ says ISNAP’s OUD abstinence policy does not conform with the state’s statute, which mandates that substance abuse rehabilitation services be provided for nurses.

“Indiana may not deny individuals lifesaving medications, including medications that treat [OUD], based on stereotypes and misinformation,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said of the settlement. “Requiring nurses to stop taking prescribed medication as a condition of maintaining a nursing license violates the ADA and not only creates barriers to recovery but inappropriately limits employment opportunities based on disability.”

In April, the DOJ issued guidance for protecting the civil rights of people with OUD under the ADA to ensure that individuals seeking treatment or recovery can continue participating in society and the workplace.

“The opioid epidemic has greatly impacted professionals and families of all walks of life, and Indiana nurses have the right to seek medically approved treatment for [OUD] under federal law,” U.S. Attorney Zachary A. Myers, of the Southern District of Indiana, said of the settlement. “Following the Justice Department’s findings and the parties’ settlement agreement, Indiana must now enact policies to ensure that Hoosier nurses will not be forced to choose between their recovery and their livelihoods.”

Under the terms of the agreement, the nursing board must allow nurses who are taking OUD medication to participate in ISNAP when the medication is prescribed by a licensed practitioner as part of a medically necessary treatment plan and is incorporated into a recovery monitoring agreement.

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

Federal authorities have reached an agreement with the Indiana State Nursing Board regarding claims the board violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against nurses with opioid use disorder (OUD), according to a statement released Sept. 1.

In March, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the findings of its investigation, stating that the board “violated the ADA by prohibiting nurses who take medication to treat OUD from participating in the Indiana State Nursing Assistance Program [ISNAP].”

ISNAP rehabilitates and monitors nurses with substance use disorders, and the nursing board contracts with vendors to administer the program. Nurses seeking recovery must typically enroll in ISNAP and complete the 1-year program to maintain an active nursing license or have a license reinstated.

Following the investigation, the nursing board was instructed to implement corrective measures, such as revising policies and handbooks and training nursing board staff and vendors on ADA guidelines and nondiscriminatory practices.

The state’s professional organization for nurses said the remediation efforts will help nurses who are struggling with opioid addiction.

Katherine Feley, DNP, RN, chief executive officer of the Indiana State Nurses Association, told this news organization, “Allowing nurses who take medication to treat OUD to remain on their medication when participating in [ISNAP] will avoid making nurses choose between their health and their profession. This improvement will increase access to treatment resources, enabling more nurses to complete treatment and progress toward a safe return to work.”

The DOJ opened an investigation after receiving a complaint from a nurse in which she alleged that she was denied participation in ISNAP because of her use of prescription medication for OUD. In 2013, while participating in a methadone maintenance program, the nurse was told she had to taper off the medication because ISNAP utilizes an “abstinence-based” model. Because of these restrictions, she could not complete the program, and her nursing license was suspended in late 2014.

In 2016, her physician prescribed a new medication, buprenorphine, and the nurse attempted to enroll in ISNAP again. The program vendor instructed her to taper off the drug within 3 months of enrollment, something her physician believed “would come with a significant risk of relapse [and possibly] death.” The nurse was unable to qualify for reinstatement of her license.

As part of the settlement, the nursing board has agreed to pay a total of $70,000 in damages to the complainant and report compliance with new guidelines to the DOJ every 6 months.

The DOJ says ISNAP’s OUD abstinence policy does not conform with the state’s statute, which mandates that substance abuse rehabilitation services be provided for nurses.

“Indiana may not deny individuals lifesaving medications, including medications that treat [OUD], based on stereotypes and misinformation,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said of the settlement. “Requiring nurses to stop taking prescribed medication as a condition of maintaining a nursing license violates the ADA and not only creates barriers to recovery but inappropriately limits employment opportunities based on disability.”

In April, the DOJ issued guidance for protecting the civil rights of people with OUD under the ADA to ensure that individuals seeking treatment or recovery can continue participating in society and the workplace.

“The opioid epidemic has greatly impacted professionals and families of all walks of life, and Indiana nurses have the right to seek medically approved treatment for [OUD] under federal law,” U.S. Attorney Zachary A. Myers, of the Southern District of Indiana, said of the settlement. “Following the Justice Department’s findings and the parties’ settlement agreement, Indiana must now enact policies to ensure that Hoosier nurses will not be forced to choose between their recovery and their livelihoods.”

Under the terms of the agreement, the nursing board must allow nurses who are taking OUD medication to participate in ISNAP when the medication is prescribed by a licensed practitioner as part of a medically necessary treatment plan and is incorporated into a recovery monitoring agreement.

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

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has submitted an interim final rule amending its medical regulations to remove the exclusion on abortion counseling and establish exceptions to the exclusion on abortions.

With this rule, the VA will now offer veterans abortion counseling and abortions—specifically, when the life or health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, or in cases of rape or incest. Beneficiaries enrolled in CHAMPVA will have the same access to care.

“As abortion bans come into force across the country,” the interim final rule indicates, “veterans in many states are no longer assured access to abortion services in their communities, even when those services are needed… Unless VA removes its existing prohibitions on abortion-related care and makes clear that needed abortion-related care is authorized, these veterans will face serious threats to their life and health.”

“This is a patient safety decision,” said Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. “Pregnant veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve to have access to world-class reproductive care when they need it most. That’s what our nation owes them, and that’s what we at VA will deliver.”

The rule is the VA’s latest response to the June 24, 2022, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which overruled Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey. “After Dobbs,” according to the rule summary, “certain States have begun to enforce existing abortion bans and restrictions on care, and are proposing and enacting new ones, creating urgent risks to the lives and health of pregnant veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries in these states.” The VA is “acting to help to ensure that, irrespective of what laws or policies States may impose” veterans will be able to receive needed care.

Restricting access to abortion care has well-documented adverse health consequences, including a higher risk of loss of future fertility, significant morbidity, or death. Veterans are also at greater risk of experiencing pregnancy-related complications due to increased rates of chronic health conditions. “We came to this decision after listening to VA health care providers and veterans across the country, who sounded the alarm that abortion restrictions are creating a medical emergency for those we serve,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA. “Offering this care will save veterans’ health and lives, and there is nothing more important than that.”

Services will be authorized immediately after the interim final rule is published. VA is taking steps to guarantee abortion-related care anywhere in the country. VA employees, when working within the scope of their federal employment, may provide authorized services regardless of state restrictions.

The determination of whether the “life and health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term” will be made on a case-by-case basis after “careful consultation” between VA health care professionals and their patients, the VA says. In cases of rape or incest, self-reporting from a veteran or VA beneficiary will constitute sufficient evidence that an act of rape or incest occurred.

The interim final rule will be available for public comment for 30 days after it is published.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has submitted an interim final rule amending its medical regulations to remove the exclusion on abortion counseling and establish exceptions to the exclusion on abortions.

With this rule, the VA will now offer veterans abortion counseling and abortions—specifically, when the life or health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, or in cases of rape or incest. Beneficiaries enrolled in CHAMPVA will have the same access to care.

“As abortion bans come into force across the country,” the interim final rule indicates, “veterans in many states are no longer assured access to abortion services in their communities, even when those services are needed… Unless VA removes its existing prohibitions on abortion-related care and makes clear that needed abortion-related care is authorized, these veterans will face serious threats to their life and health.”

“This is a patient safety decision,” said Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. “Pregnant veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve to have access to world-class reproductive care when they need it most. That’s what our nation owes them, and that’s what we at VA will deliver.”

The rule is the VA’s latest response to the June 24, 2022, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which overruled Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey. “After Dobbs,” according to the rule summary, “certain States have begun to enforce existing abortion bans and restrictions on care, and are proposing and enacting new ones, creating urgent risks to the lives and health of pregnant veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries in these states.” The VA is “acting to help to ensure that, irrespective of what laws or policies States may impose” veterans will be able to receive needed care.

Restricting access to abortion care has well-documented adverse health consequences, including a higher risk of loss of future fertility, significant morbidity, or death. Veterans are also at greater risk of experiencing pregnancy-related complications due to increased rates of chronic health conditions. “We came to this decision after listening to VA health care providers and veterans across the country, who sounded the alarm that abortion restrictions are creating a medical emergency for those we serve,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA. “Offering this care will save veterans’ health and lives, and there is nothing more important than that.”

Services will be authorized immediately after the interim final rule is published. VA is taking steps to guarantee abortion-related care anywhere in the country. VA employees, when working within the scope of their federal employment, may provide authorized services regardless of state restrictions.

The determination of whether the “life and health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term” will be made on a case-by-case basis after “careful consultation” between VA health care professionals and their patients, the VA says. In cases of rape or incest, self-reporting from a veteran or VA beneficiary will constitute sufficient evidence that an act of rape or incest occurred.

The interim final rule will be available for public comment for 30 days after it is published.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has submitted an interim final rule amending its medical regulations to remove the exclusion on abortion counseling and establish exceptions to the exclusion on abortions.

With this rule, the VA will now offer veterans abortion counseling and abortions—specifically, when the life or health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, or in cases of rape or incest. Beneficiaries enrolled in CHAMPVA will have the same access to care.

“As abortion bans come into force across the country,” the interim final rule indicates, “veterans in many states are no longer assured access to abortion services in their communities, even when those services are needed… Unless VA removes its existing prohibitions on abortion-related care and makes clear that needed abortion-related care is authorized, these veterans will face serious threats to their life and health.”

“This is a patient safety decision,” said Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. “Pregnant veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve to have access to world-class reproductive care when they need it most. That’s what our nation owes them, and that’s what we at VA will deliver.”

The rule is the VA’s latest response to the June 24, 2022, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which overruled Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey. “After Dobbs,” according to the rule summary, “certain States have begun to enforce existing abortion bans and restrictions on care, and are proposing and enacting new ones, creating urgent risks to the lives and health of pregnant veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries in these states.” The VA is “acting to help to ensure that, irrespective of what laws or policies States may impose” veterans will be able to receive needed care.

Restricting access to abortion care has well-documented adverse health consequences, including a higher risk of loss of future fertility, significant morbidity, or death. Veterans are also at greater risk of experiencing pregnancy-related complications due to increased rates of chronic health conditions. “We came to this decision after listening to VA health care providers and veterans across the country, who sounded the alarm that abortion restrictions are creating a medical emergency for those we serve,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA. “Offering this care will save veterans’ health and lives, and there is nothing more important than that.”

Services will be authorized immediately after the interim final rule is published. VA is taking steps to guarantee abortion-related care anywhere in the country. VA employees, when working within the scope of their federal employment, may provide authorized services regardless of state restrictions.

The determination of whether the “life and health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term” will be made on a case-by-case basis after “careful consultation” between VA health care professionals and their patients, the VA says. In cases of rape or incest, self-reporting from a veteran or VA beneficiary will constitute sufficient evidence that an act of rape or incest occurred.

The interim final rule will be available for public comment for 30 days after it is published.

Black Americans who go to church and pray regularly have better cardiovascular health than Black Americans who are not as religious or have no religious beliefs, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, used survey responses and health screenings for 2,967 African Americans in and around Jackson, Mich.

Those who attended religious services frequently were 15% more likely to achieve an intermediate or ideal cardiovascular health score, based on criteria from the AHA.

Those who prayed privately regularly had a 12% increase in the chances of achieving an intermediate or ideal AHA metric for diet. Those who said they used “religious coping” were 14% more likely to have good cardiovascular health.

The study’s lead author, cardiologist LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the results were somewhat surprising because diet, physical activity, and smoking are extremely difficult to change.

People in the study were grouped by their self-reported levels of spirituality, meaning belief in the existence of a supreme being, and how often they went to church services, prayed in private, and used religion to cope with stressful events and the challenges of life.

They were then grouped according to the health factors in the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels). The association changed the Simple 7 to the Essential 8 last June, adding sleep.

Dr. Brewer said the study may help doctors better treat Black Americans, who, statistics show, tend to have poorer overall cardiovascular health than non-Hispanic White people. Death rates from heart disease are higher for Black Americans than white adults.

“Our findings highlight the substantial role that culturally tailored health promotion initiatives and recommendations for lifestyle change may play in advancing health equity,” Dr. Brewer said in a news release. “The cultural relevance of interventions may increase their likelihood of influencing cardiovascular health and also the sustainability and maintenance of healthy lifestyle changes.”

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

Black Americans who go to church and pray regularly have better cardiovascular health than Black Americans who are not as religious or have no religious beliefs, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, used survey responses and health screenings for 2,967 African Americans in and around Jackson, Mich.

Those who attended religious services frequently were 15% more likely to achieve an intermediate or ideal cardiovascular health score, based on criteria from the AHA.

Those who prayed privately regularly had a 12% increase in the chances of achieving an intermediate or ideal AHA metric for diet. Those who said they used “religious coping” were 14% more likely to have good cardiovascular health.

The study’s lead author, cardiologist LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the results were somewhat surprising because diet, physical activity, and smoking are extremely difficult to change.

People in the study were grouped by their self-reported levels of spirituality, meaning belief in the existence of a supreme being, and how often they went to church services, prayed in private, and used religion to cope with stressful events and the challenges of life.

They were then grouped according to the health factors in the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels). The association changed the Simple 7 to the Essential 8 last June, adding sleep.

Dr. Brewer said the study may help doctors better treat Black Americans, who, statistics show, tend to have poorer overall cardiovascular health than non-Hispanic White people. Death rates from heart disease are higher for Black Americans than white adults.

“Our findings highlight the substantial role that culturally tailored health promotion initiatives and recommendations for lifestyle change may play in advancing health equity,” Dr. Brewer said in a news release. “The cultural relevance of interventions may increase their likelihood of influencing cardiovascular health and also the sustainability and maintenance of healthy lifestyle changes.”

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

Black Americans who go to church and pray regularly have better cardiovascular health than Black Americans who are not as religious or have no religious beliefs, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, used survey responses and health screenings for 2,967 African Americans in and around Jackson, Mich.

Those who attended religious services frequently were 15% more likely to achieve an intermediate or ideal cardiovascular health score, based on criteria from the AHA.

Those who prayed privately regularly had a 12% increase in the chances of achieving an intermediate or ideal AHA metric for diet. Those who said they used “religious coping” were 14% more likely to have good cardiovascular health.

The study’s lead author, cardiologist LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the results were somewhat surprising because diet, physical activity, and smoking are extremely difficult to change.

People in the study were grouped by their self-reported levels of spirituality, meaning belief in the existence of a supreme being, and how often they went to church services, prayed in private, and used religion to cope with stressful events and the challenges of life.

They were then grouped according to the health factors in the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels). The association changed the Simple 7 to the Essential 8 last June, adding sleep.

Dr. Brewer said the study may help doctors better treat Black Americans, who, statistics show, tend to have poorer overall cardiovascular health than non-Hispanic White people. Death rates from heart disease are higher for Black Americans than white adults.

“Our findings highlight the substantial role that culturally tailored health promotion initiatives and recommendations for lifestyle change may play in advancing health equity,” Dr. Brewer said in a news release. “The cultural relevance of interventions may increase their likelihood of influencing cardiovascular health and also the sustainability and maintenance of healthy lifestyle changes.”

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

Whether coffee is good or bad for health is a frequent debate in the media, fueled by apparently conflicting studies suggesting the plethora of bioactive chemicals in the popular brew could either raise or lower cancer risk.

Now, an analysis by Cambridge scientists has suggested that while coffee is not associated with enhanced overall risk of non–digestive system cancers among people genetically predicted to drink more of it, consumption was associated with a higher risk of digestive system cancers.

Lynda Banzi/MDedge News

That risk was driven by a “strong association” with esophageal cancer, although this might be explained by a tendency for drinking it warm or hot, the study in the journal Clinical Nutrition suggested.

Regular coffee drinking has been linked to a slightly lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, it remains unclear whether coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of dying from cancer.
 

Hotly debated

In 2016, a working group of international scientists convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found no conclusive evidence for a carcinogenic effect of drinking coffee. However, the experts did find that drinking very hot beverages was a probable cause of esophageal cancer, making “the temperature, rather than the drinks themselves” the most likely cause, according to the organization’s director.

This latest study concurred. “We provide strong evidence for a causal relationship which is large in magnitude (threefold) and consistent across sensitivity analyses and in a replication study,” it stated.

The Cambridge researchers, assisted by colleagues at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and Bristol Medical School, conducted a Mendelian randomization study to investigate causal associations between coffee consumption and 22 site-specific cancers using data of individuals of European descent in the UK Biobank.

They reported “no strong evidence supporting a causal relationship between genetically-predicted coffee consumption and the majority of cancers studied” (odds ratio [OR], in the main analysis 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.14, P = .183), and remained without association after adjustments for predicted BMI, smoking, or alcohol consumption.

However, genetically predicted coffee consumption was linked to an increased risk of digestive system cancer (OR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.09-1.51, P = .003), and the risk was largely attributed to “a strong association with esophageal cancer” (OR, 2.79, 95% CI, 1.73-4.50, P = 2.5x10^-5). This risk association remained persistent after adjustment for confounders, the researchers said.
 

Coffee or tea?

Further analysis of the data found that increased risk of esophageal cancer was consistently associated with genetically predicted coffee consumption by individuals with a preference for warm and hot drinks. Among this group, a similar esophageal cancer risk profile among those who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee a day and those who said they did not drink coffee was most likely due to a high prevalence of tea drinking, the study authors said.

“It is, therefore, plausible that a carcinogenic effect of coffee relates to thermal injury broadly, rather than being specific to coffee or its constituents,” said the scientists, who highlighted that this was also pointed out by the IARC in its statement 6 years ago.

Genetically predicted coffee consumption was also found to be associated with increased risk of multiple myeloma (OR, 2.25, 95% CI, 1.30-3.89, P = .004) and reduced ovarian cancer risk (OR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.93, P = .020).

The authors concluded there was “evidence for coffee consumption being causally associated with risk of esophageal cancer, with some evidence this is related to a temperature effect.” Otherwise, “our results do not support a linear causal association with the majority of cancer types studied, other than limited evidence for harmful and protective associations with multiple myeloma and ovarian cancers respectively.”

Further studies were needed to investigate “the possible mechanisms of coffee consumption in esophageal carcinogenesis,” they said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Whether coffee is good or bad for health is a frequent debate in the media, fueled by apparently conflicting studies suggesting the plethora of bioactive chemicals in the popular brew could either raise or lower cancer risk.

Now, an analysis by Cambridge scientists has suggested that while coffee is not associated with enhanced overall risk of non–digestive system cancers among people genetically predicted to drink more of it, consumption was associated with a higher risk of digestive system cancers.

Lynda Banzi/MDedge News

That risk was driven by a “strong association” with esophageal cancer, although this might be explained by a tendency for drinking it warm or hot, the study in the journal Clinical Nutrition suggested.

Regular coffee drinking has been linked to a slightly lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, it remains unclear whether coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of dying from cancer.
 

Hotly debated

In 2016, a working group of international scientists convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found no conclusive evidence for a carcinogenic effect of drinking coffee. However, the experts did find that drinking very hot beverages was a probable cause of esophageal cancer, making “the temperature, rather than the drinks themselves” the most likely cause, according to the organization’s director.

This latest study concurred. “We provide strong evidence for a causal relationship which is large in magnitude (threefold) and consistent across sensitivity analyses and in a replication study,” it stated.

The Cambridge researchers, assisted by colleagues at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and Bristol Medical School, conducted a Mendelian randomization study to investigate causal associations between coffee consumption and 22 site-specific cancers using data of individuals of European descent in the UK Biobank.

They reported “no strong evidence supporting a causal relationship between genetically-predicted coffee consumption and the majority of cancers studied” (odds ratio [OR], in the main analysis 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.14, P = .183), and remained without association after adjustments for predicted BMI, smoking, or alcohol consumption.

However, genetically predicted coffee consumption was linked to an increased risk of digestive system cancer (OR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.09-1.51, P = .003), and the risk was largely attributed to “a strong association with esophageal cancer” (OR, 2.79, 95% CI, 1.73-4.50, P = 2.5x10^-5). This risk association remained persistent after adjustment for confounders, the researchers said.
 

Coffee or tea?

Further analysis of the data found that increased risk of esophageal cancer was consistently associated with genetically predicted coffee consumption by individuals with a preference for warm and hot drinks. Among this group, a similar esophageal cancer risk profile among those who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee a day and those who said they did not drink coffee was most likely due to a high prevalence of tea drinking, the study authors said.

“It is, therefore, plausible that a carcinogenic effect of coffee relates to thermal injury broadly, rather than being specific to coffee or its constituents,” said the scientists, who highlighted that this was also pointed out by the IARC in its statement 6 years ago.

Genetically predicted coffee consumption was also found to be associated with increased risk of multiple myeloma (OR, 2.25, 95% CI, 1.30-3.89, P = .004) and reduced ovarian cancer risk (OR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.93, P = .020).

The authors concluded there was “evidence for coffee consumption being causally associated with risk of esophageal cancer, with some evidence this is related to a temperature effect.” Otherwise, “our results do not support a linear causal association with the majority of cancer types studied, other than limited evidence for harmful and protective associations with multiple myeloma and ovarian cancers respectively.”

Further studies were needed to investigate “the possible mechanisms of coffee consumption in esophageal carcinogenesis,” they said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Whether coffee is good or bad for health is a frequent debate in the media, fueled by apparently conflicting studies suggesting the plethora of bioactive chemicals in the popular brew could either raise or lower cancer risk.

Now, an analysis by Cambridge scientists has suggested that while coffee is not associated with enhanced overall risk of non–digestive system cancers among people genetically predicted to drink more of it, consumption was associated with a higher risk of digestive system cancers.

Lynda Banzi/MDedge News

That risk was driven by a “strong association” with esophageal cancer, although this might be explained by a tendency for drinking it warm or hot, the study in the journal Clinical Nutrition suggested.

Regular coffee drinking has been linked to a slightly lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, it remains unclear whether coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of dying from cancer.
 

Hotly debated

In 2016, a working group of international scientists convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found no conclusive evidence for a carcinogenic effect of drinking coffee. However, the experts did find that drinking very hot beverages was a probable cause of esophageal cancer, making “the temperature, rather than the drinks themselves” the most likely cause, according to the organization’s director.

This latest study concurred. “We provide strong evidence for a causal relationship which is large in magnitude (threefold) and consistent across sensitivity analyses and in a replication study,” it stated.

The Cambridge researchers, assisted by colleagues at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and Bristol Medical School, conducted a Mendelian randomization study to investigate causal associations between coffee consumption and 22 site-specific cancers using data of individuals of European descent in the UK Biobank.

They reported “no strong evidence supporting a causal relationship between genetically-predicted coffee consumption and the majority of cancers studied” (odds ratio [OR], in the main analysis 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.14, P = .183), and remained without association after adjustments for predicted BMI, smoking, or alcohol consumption.

However, genetically predicted coffee consumption was linked to an increased risk of digestive system cancer (OR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.09-1.51, P = .003), and the risk was largely attributed to “a strong association with esophageal cancer” (OR, 2.79, 95% CI, 1.73-4.50, P = 2.5x10^-5). This risk association remained persistent after adjustment for confounders, the researchers said.
 

Coffee or tea?

Further analysis of the data found that increased risk of esophageal cancer was consistently associated with genetically predicted coffee consumption by individuals with a preference for warm and hot drinks. Among this group, a similar esophageal cancer risk profile among those who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee a day and those who said they did not drink coffee was most likely due to a high prevalence of tea drinking, the study authors said.

“It is, therefore, plausible that a carcinogenic effect of coffee relates to thermal injury broadly, rather than being specific to coffee or its constituents,” said the scientists, who highlighted that this was also pointed out by the IARC in its statement 6 years ago.

Genetically predicted coffee consumption was also found to be associated with increased risk of multiple myeloma (OR, 2.25, 95% CI, 1.30-3.89, P = .004) and reduced ovarian cancer risk (OR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.93, P = .020).

The authors concluded there was “evidence for coffee consumption being causally associated with risk of esophageal cancer, with some evidence this is related to a temperature effect.” Otherwise, “our results do not support a linear causal association with the majority of cancer types studied, other than limited evidence for harmful and protective associations with multiple myeloma and ovarian cancers respectively.”

Further studies were needed to investigate “the possible mechanisms of coffee consumption in esophageal carcinogenesis,” they said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

People who lift weights understand they’re playing a long game.

Once they get past the “newbie gains” – the quick and exciting increases in muscle strength and size – it takes time, effort, and patience to keep making progress.

Whether they know it or not, they’re also playing the longevity game.

A growing body of research shows that resistance training adds years to both lifespan and “healthspan” – the period of life when we’re in good health.

A 2022 study review from Japanese researchers linked “muscle-strengthening activities” to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality.

BeyondImages/Getty Images

Resistance exercise was also linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (17%), cancer (12%), and diabetes (17%).

We’ve known for a long time that strength is an excellent predictor of future health. Lots of research has shown that, if all else is equal, stronger men and women have a much lower risk of dying during a given period than people with less strength.

This new research shows that strength training offers similar protection, regardless of the results of that training. So even if you don’t think you’re getting as strong or as lean as you’d like to be, you should keep it up – because chances are, you’re still helping your health in a big way.
 

How strength training helps as you age

For longevity, strength training seems to be especially effective for older adults, says Roger Fielding, PhD, of Tufts University Medford, Mass., who’s been studying the role of exercise in the aging process since the early 1990s.

“With aging, we see clear deficits in muscle function and bone health,” he says. “That all can be slowed, attenuated, or reversed with appropriate exercise.”

His concept of “appropriate” has changed a lot in the past 3 decades. “When I first started studying this stuff, we would try to give people a very formalized prescription” for strength training, he says.

That strength-training prescription typically included a lot of sets (three per exercise), moderate reps (8-12 per set), and relatively heavy weights. It also required professional supervision in a well-equipped gym, which was both unappealing and impractical for most of the target population.

“What I’ve learned is that even lower-intensity strength training, at home, without a lot of specialized equipment, has some benefits,” he says.

Which benefits? That’s harder to say.

The research linking resistance exercise to lower mortality comes from large, population-wide surveys, looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. The broad category of “muscle-strengthening exercises” can include anything from calisthenics in the living room to a serious bodybuilding or power-lifting program.

They’re also based on self-reporting by the people studied. Because of that, “we should be careful how we interpret some of these studies,” Dr. Fielding says.
 

How much strength training should you do?

That warning seems especially appropriate for the study’s most surprising conclusion: The maximum longevity benefit comes from one or two resistance exercise sessions a week totaling 30-60 minutes.

The study adds that it’s unclear why more strength training would have diminishing or even negative returns.

Robert Linkul, owner of Training the Older Adult in Shingle Springs, Calif., thinks the answer is perfectly clear.

“Less might be more for the beginning lifter,” he says. That’s why his new clients typically begin with two 50-minute workouts a week. But after 3 months, they need to train three times a week to continue seeing gains.

He currently has 14 clients who have been with him at least 16 years. Most of them started in their 50s and are now in their 60s or 70s. If there were any downside to working out more than two times a week, he’s pretty sure he would’ve seen it by now.
 

Live longer and move longer, too

Mr. Linkul says that his training program includes a lot more than lifting. Clients start each workout with 10-15 minutes of mobility and warm-up exercises. That’s followed by 15 minutes of strength training and 15 minutes of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

HIRT uses functional exercises – lifting and carrying dumbbells or kettlebells; pushing or pulling a weighted sled – to improve strength and endurance at the same time.

“Most of the clients I get are training for real-life function,” Mr. Linkul says.

Falling is one of their biggest concerns, and for good reason: According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second-leading cause of unintentional injury–related deaths worldwide, behind only traffic accidents.

Their other major concern is losing their independence, which often follows a fall. “They want to feel they’re not near using a cane or a walker or being stuck in a wheelchair,” he says. “The more we train, the further we get from that.”

That’s where strength training offers its most unique advantages, according to a 2019 study from researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Resistance exercise is “particularly potent for maintaining mobility in older adults,” the study says.
 

Training for life

Traditional aerobic exercise also offers many of the same benefits, including longer life and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

But there’s no need to choose one or the other. As a recent study) noted, combining aerobic and strength exercises leads to a lower risk of early death than either of them separately.

Which makes perfect sense to Dr. Fielding.

“Usually, people who’re physically active aren’t just doing strength training alone,” he says. “Some exercise is better than no exercise,” and more is usually better than less. “People have to find things they like to do and want to do and are able to do consistently.”

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

People who lift weights understand they’re playing a long game.

Once they get past the “newbie gains” – the quick and exciting increases in muscle strength and size – it takes time, effort, and patience to keep making progress.

Whether they know it or not, they’re also playing the longevity game.

A growing body of research shows that resistance training adds years to both lifespan and “healthspan” – the period of life when we’re in good health.

A 2022 study review from Japanese researchers linked “muscle-strengthening activities” to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality.

BeyondImages/Getty Images

Resistance exercise was also linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (17%), cancer (12%), and diabetes (17%).

We’ve known for a long time that strength is an excellent predictor of future health. Lots of research has shown that, if all else is equal, stronger men and women have a much lower risk of dying during a given period than people with less strength.

This new research shows that strength training offers similar protection, regardless of the results of that training. So even if you don’t think you’re getting as strong or as lean as you’d like to be, you should keep it up – because chances are, you’re still helping your health in a big way.
 

How strength training helps as you age

For longevity, strength training seems to be especially effective for older adults, says Roger Fielding, PhD, of Tufts University Medford, Mass., who’s been studying the role of exercise in the aging process since the early 1990s.

“With aging, we see clear deficits in muscle function and bone health,” he says. “That all can be slowed, attenuated, or reversed with appropriate exercise.”

His concept of “appropriate” has changed a lot in the past 3 decades. “When I first started studying this stuff, we would try to give people a very formalized prescription” for strength training, he says.

That strength-training prescription typically included a lot of sets (three per exercise), moderate reps (8-12 per set), and relatively heavy weights. It also required professional supervision in a well-equipped gym, which was both unappealing and impractical for most of the target population.

“What I’ve learned is that even lower-intensity strength training, at home, without a lot of specialized equipment, has some benefits,” he says.

Which benefits? That’s harder to say.

The research linking resistance exercise to lower mortality comes from large, population-wide surveys, looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. The broad category of “muscle-strengthening exercises” can include anything from calisthenics in the living room to a serious bodybuilding or power-lifting program.

They’re also based on self-reporting by the people studied. Because of that, “we should be careful how we interpret some of these studies,” Dr. Fielding says.
 

How much strength training should you do?

That warning seems especially appropriate for the study’s most surprising conclusion: The maximum longevity benefit comes from one or two resistance exercise sessions a week totaling 30-60 minutes.

The study adds that it’s unclear why more strength training would have diminishing or even negative returns.

Robert Linkul, owner of Training the Older Adult in Shingle Springs, Calif., thinks the answer is perfectly clear.

“Less might be more for the beginning lifter,” he says. That’s why his new clients typically begin with two 50-minute workouts a week. But after 3 months, they need to train three times a week to continue seeing gains.

He currently has 14 clients who have been with him at least 16 years. Most of them started in their 50s and are now in their 60s or 70s. If there were any downside to working out more than two times a week, he’s pretty sure he would’ve seen it by now.
 

Live longer and move longer, too

Mr. Linkul says that his training program includes a lot more than lifting. Clients start each workout with 10-15 minutes of mobility and warm-up exercises. That’s followed by 15 minutes of strength training and 15 minutes of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

HIRT uses functional exercises – lifting and carrying dumbbells or kettlebells; pushing or pulling a weighted sled – to improve strength and endurance at the same time.

“Most of the clients I get are training for real-life function,” Mr. Linkul says.

Falling is one of their biggest concerns, and for good reason: According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second-leading cause of unintentional injury–related deaths worldwide, behind only traffic accidents.

Their other major concern is losing their independence, which often follows a fall. “They want to feel they’re not near using a cane or a walker or being stuck in a wheelchair,” he says. “The more we train, the further we get from that.”

That’s where strength training offers its most unique advantages, according to a 2019 study from researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Resistance exercise is “particularly potent for maintaining mobility in older adults,” the study says.
 

Training for life

Traditional aerobic exercise also offers many of the same benefits, including longer life and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

But there’s no need to choose one or the other. As a recent study) noted, combining aerobic and strength exercises leads to a lower risk of early death than either of them separately.

Which makes perfect sense to Dr. Fielding.

“Usually, people who’re physically active aren’t just doing strength training alone,” he says. “Some exercise is better than no exercise,” and more is usually better than less. “People have to find things they like to do and want to do and are able to do consistently.”

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

People who lift weights understand they’re playing a long game.

Once they get past the “newbie gains” – the quick and exciting increases in muscle strength and size – it takes time, effort, and patience to keep making progress.

Whether they know it or not, they’re also playing the longevity game.

A growing body of research shows that resistance training adds years to both lifespan and “healthspan” – the period of life when we’re in good health.

A 2022 study review from Japanese researchers linked “muscle-strengthening activities” to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality.

BeyondImages/Getty Images

Resistance exercise was also linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (17%), cancer (12%), and diabetes (17%).

We’ve known for a long time that strength is an excellent predictor of future health. Lots of research has shown that, if all else is equal, stronger men and women have a much lower risk of dying during a given period than people with less strength.

This new research shows that strength training offers similar protection, regardless of the results of that training. So even if you don’t think you’re getting as strong or as lean as you’d like to be, you should keep it up – because chances are, you’re still helping your health in a big way.
 

How strength training helps as you age

For longevity, strength training seems to be especially effective for older adults, says Roger Fielding, PhD, of Tufts University Medford, Mass., who’s been studying the role of exercise in the aging process since the early 1990s.

“With aging, we see clear deficits in muscle function and bone health,” he says. “That all can be slowed, attenuated, or reversed with appropriate exercise.”

His concept of “appropriate” has changed a lot in the past 3 decades. “When I first started studying this stuff, we would try to give people a very formalized prescription” for strength training, he says.

That strength-training prescription typically included a lot of sets (three per exercise), moderate reps (8-12 per set), and relatively heavy weights. It also required professional supervision in a well-equipped gym, which was both unappealing and impractical for most of the target population.

“What I’ve learned is that even lower-intensity strength training, at home, without a lot of specialized equipment, has some benefits,” he says.

Which benefits? That’s harder to say.

The research linking resistance exercise to lower mortality comes from large, population-wide surveys, looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. The broad category of “muscle-strengthening exercises” can include anything from calisthenics in the living room to a serious bodybuilding or power-lifting program.

They’re also based on self-reporting by the people studied. Because of that, “we should be careful how we interpret some of these studies,” Dr. Fielding says.
 

How much strength training should you do?

That warning seems especially appropriate for the study’s most surprising conclusion: The maximum longevity benefit comes from one or two resistance exercise sessions a week totaling 30-60 minutes.

The study adds that it’s unclear why more strength training would have diminishing or even negative returns.

Robert Linkul, owner of Training the Older Adult in Shingle Springs, Calif., thinks the answer is perfectly clear.

“Less might be more for the beginning lifter,” he says. That’s why his new clients typically begin with two 50-minute workouts a week. But after 3 months, they need to train three times a week to continue seeing gains.

He currently has 14 clients who have been with him at least 16 years. Most of them started in their 50s and are now in their 60s or 70s. If there were any downside to working out more than two times a week, he’s pretty sure he would’ve seen it by now.
 

Live longer and move longer, too

Mr. Linkul says that his training program includes a lot more than lifting. Clients start each workout with 10-15 minutes of mobility and warm-up exercises. That’s followed by 15 minutes of strength training and 15 minutes of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

HIRT uses functional exercises – lifting and carrying dumbbells or kettlebells; pushing or pulling a weighted sled – to improve strength and endurance at the same time.

“Most of the clients I get are training for real-life function,” Mr. Linkul says.

Falling is one of their biggest concerns, and for good reason: According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second-leading cause of unintentional injury–related deaths worldwide, behind only traffic accidents.

Their other major concern is losing their independence, which often follows a fall. “They want to feel they’re not near using a cane or a walker or being stuck in a wheelchair,” he says. “The more we train, the further we get from that.”

That’s where strength training offers its most unique advantages, according to a 2019 study from researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Resistance exercise is “particularly potent for maintaining mobility in older adults,” the study says.
 

Training for life

Traditional aerobic exercise also offers many of the same benefits, including longer life and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

But there’s no need to choose one or the other. As a recent study) noted, combining aerobic and strength exercises leads to a lower risk of early death than either of them separately.

Which makes perfect sense to Dr. Fielding.

“Usually, people who’re physically active aren’t just doing strength training alone,” he says. “Some exercise is better than no exercise,” and more is usually better than less. “People have to find things they like to do and want to do and are able to do consistently.”

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

The combination of the two antiviral medications glecaprevir and pibrentasvir (Mavyret) is linked to improved symptoms in posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.

A national cohort study of U.S. Veterans Affairs patients included more than 250 participants with PTSD and comorbid hepatitis C virus.

Results showed the glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) combo was more strongly associated with PTSD symptom improvement than other antiviral combinations tested in the study, including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir.

“While there are great treatments available for PTSD, there’s a lot of desire in the field to find a new medication that will be helpful,” lead author Brian Shiner, MD, acting associate chief of staff for research, VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt., told this news organization.

“We had a great opportunity to use a novel data mining method to look in a wonderful database for a new treatment and we found something very promising,” said Dr. Shiner, who is also an associate professor of psychiatry at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
 

Common psychiatric disorder

PTSD is one of the most common psychiatric disorders, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 6.4% in the United States. Yet only two drugs, the SSRIs sertraline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil), have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat PTSD.

The VA recommends trauma-based psychotherapy, such as prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy, as first-line treatments for PTSD. However, not all patents respond to or have access to these approaches, said Dr. Shiner.

The investigators wanted to examine whether existing medications might reduce PTSD symptoms. Their previous exploratory study used “data mining” of national VA medical records.

Results from that study showed the three hepatitis C antivirals of GLE (an NS3/4A protease inhibitor), PIB (a NS5A protein inhibitor), and velpatasvir (another NS5A protein inhibitor) were associated with more than double the expected number of patients experiencing a clinically meaningful improvement in PTSD symptoms.

Sertraline was associated with only a slightly higher than expected improvement.

“SSRIs are effective, better than placebo, but the effects are not as good as we would hope,” Dr. Shiner said.

He noted that GLE and PIB are always prescribed together (Mavyret), whereas velpatasvir is commonly prescribed with the NS5B polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir under the brand name Epclusa. Sofosbuvir is also commonly prescribed with the NS5A protein inhibitor ledipasvir under the brand name Harvoni.
 

Strong association

The new study included 253 VA users with a diagnosis of PTSD and hepatitis C. Of these, 54 were receiving GLE/PIB, 145 were receiving ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, and 54 were receiving sofosbuvir/velpatasvir.

Researchers compared the groups with respect to change over 8-12 weeks on the PTSD Checklist (PCL), a 20-item self-report scale.

In adjusted analyses, the largest mean improvement on the PCL was 14.9 points for the GLE/PIB group and the smallest adjusted mean improvement on the PCL was 7.5 points for the ledipasvir/sofosbuvir group (mean difference, 7.34 points; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-13.63).

The adjusted proportion of patients improving by 15 points or more on the PCL was highest for the GLE/PIB group at 43.6% and lowest for the ledipasvir/sofosbuvir group at 26.3%.

Even when accounting for patients receiving trauma-based therapy or SSRIs, “it still looks like there’s a strong association of the hepatitis C antivirals with PTSD symptom improvement,” said Dr. Shiner.

Researchers also carried out a sensitivity analysis among only patients who were cured of HCV (over 90% of the total sample), defined as having an undetectable HCV viral load up to a year after completion of therapy. The analysis showed PTSD outcomes were still superior for participants receiving GLE/PIB.

“The sensitivity analysis was not that robust because almost everyone was cured, so it included almost everybody, but it didn’t point us away from the possibility of an off-target effect,” Dr. Shiner said.

Why antivirals may improve PTSD symptoms is not clear, but they may affect the immune response in patients with hepatitis C – and there may also be an immune response in PTSD, he noted. “Some of those factors may be shared, and that could explain some of the off-target effect.”

However, he noted the GLE/PIB drug combination is costly and patients with PTSD can probably access it only through enrolling in a study.

“We are not recommending that people go out and purchase this very expensive drug to treat their PTSD at this point,” Dr. Shiner said.

He added that the research team has now received funding from the Department of Defense to conduct a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of GLE/PIB as a potential treatment for PTSD.
 

Promising potential treatment

PTSD expert Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, D.C., said the results suggest GLE/PIB is a promising potential treatment for PTSD.

“I definitely think this should be looked at further,” said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that current PTSD therapies have drawbacks. SSRIs have side effects, the most “troubling” being sexual dysfunction. And although cognitive-behavioral therapy is effective, “people have to stick with it” and studies show about two thirds of patients drop out, she said.

Potentially effective PTSD treatment approaches include “self-soothing” or “self-regulating” techniques such as exercise, meditation, yoga, and working with animals, she added.

Dr. Ritchie pointed out the numbers of participants in the study were relatively small, including two groups that had only 54 patients each.

And while the GLE/PIB combination should be explored further, cost, availability, and side effects of this medication need to be taken into consideration, she said.

Dr. Ritchie added she is not overly concerned that the mechanism of action for the combination on PTSD may not be well understood. She noted several psychiatric medications fall into that category, including electroconvulsive therapy and lithium.

“When lithium was first found to be effective against bipolar disorder, we had no clue why,” she said. “So I would not discount the antiviral based on us not knowing how it works.”

However, “we’re a long way off” from starting a patient with PTSD on an antiviral, said Dr. Ritchie, adding there are “a lot of steps to go through” to get FDA approval.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. The cohort used for this study was developed through support from the Department of Defense. Dr. Shiner is a coinventor on a provisional patent application covering the use of glecaprevir, pibrentasvir, and velpatasvir for PTSD and other psychiatric indications. Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of the two antiviral medications glecaprevir and pibrentasvir (Mavyret) is linked to improved symptoms in posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.

A national cohort study of U.S. Veterans Affairs patients included more than 250 participants with PTSD and comorbid hepatitis C virus.

Results showed the glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) combo was more strongly associated with PTSD symptom improvement than other antiviral combinations tested in the study, including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir.

“While there are great treatments available for PTSD, there’s a lot of desire in the field to find a new medication that will be helpful,” lead author Brian Shiner, MD, acting associate chief of staff for research, VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt., told this news organization.

“We had a great opportunity to use a novel data mining method to look in a wonderful database for a new treatment and we found something very promising,” said Dr. Shiner, who is also an associate professor of psychiatry at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
 

Common psychiatric disorder

PTSD is one of the most common psychiatric disorders, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 6.4% in the United States. Yet only two drugs, the SSRIs sertraline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil), have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat PTSD.

The VA recommends trauma-based psychotherapy, such as prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy, as first-line treatments for PTSD. However, not all patents respond to or have access to these approaches, said Dr. Shiner.

The investigators wanted to examine whether existing medications might reduce PTSD symptoms. Their previous exploratory study used “data mining” of national VA medical records.

Results from that study showed the three hepatitis C antivirals of GLE (an NS3/4A protease inhibitor), PIB (a NS5A protein inhibitor), and velpatasvir (another NS5A protein inhibitor) were associated with more than double the expected number of patients experiencing a clinically meaningful improvement in PTSD symptoms.

Sertraline was associated with only a slightly higher than expected improvement.

“SSRIs are effective, better than placebo, but the effects are not as good as we would hope,” Dr. Shiner said.

He noted that GLE and PIB are always prescribed together (Mavyret), whereas velpatasvir is commonly prescribed with the NS5B polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir under the brand name Epclusa. Sofosbuvir is also commonly prescribed with the NS5A protein inhibitor ledipasvir under the brand name Harvoni.
 

Strong association

The new study included 253 VA users with a diagnosis of PTSD and hepatitis C. Of these, 54 were receiving GLE/PIB, 145 were receiving ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, and 54 were receiving sofosbuvir/velpatasvir.

Researchers compared the groups with respect to change over 8-12 weeks on the PTSD Checklist (PCL), a 20-item self-report scale.

In adjusted analyses, the largest mean improvement on the PCL was 14.9 points for the GLE/PIB group and the smallest adjusted mean improvement on the PCL was 7.5 points for the ledipasvir/sofosbuvir group (mean difference, 7.34 points; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-13.63).

The adjusted proportion of patients improving by 15 points or more on the PCL was highest for the GLE/PIB group at 43.6% and lowest for the ledipasvir/sofosbuvir group at 26.3%.

Even when accounting for patients receiving trauma-based therapy or SSRIs, “it still looks like there’s a strong association of the hepatitis C antivirals with PTSD symptom improvement,” said Dr. Shiner.

Researchers also carried out a sensitivity analysis among only patients who were cured of HCV (over 90% of the total sample), defined as having an undetectable HCV viral load up to a year after completion of therapy. The analysis showed PTSD outcomes were still superior for participants receiving GLE/PIB.

“The sensitivity analysis was not that robust because almost everyone was cured, so it included almost everybody, but it didn’t point us away from the possibility of an off-target effect,” Dr. Shiner said.

Why antivirals may improve PTSD symptoms is not clear, but they may affect the immune response in patients with hepatitis C – and there may also be an immune response in PTSD, he noted. “Some of those factors may be shared, and that could explain some of the off-target effect.”

However, he noted the GLE/PIB drug combination is costly and patients with PTSD can probably access it only through enrolling in a study.

“We are not recommending that people go out and purchase this very expensive drug to treat their PTSD at this point,” Dr. Shiner said.

He added that the research team has now received funding from the Department of Defense to conduct a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of GLE/PIB as a potential treatment for PTSD.
 

Promising potential treatment

PTSD expert Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, D.C., said the results suggest GLE/PIB is a promising potential treatment for PTSD.

“I definitely think this should be looked at further,” said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that current PTSD therapies have drawbacks. SSRIs have side effects, the most “troubling” being sexual dysfunction. And although cognitive-behavioral therapy is effective, “people have to stick with it” and studies show about two thirds of patients drop out, she said.

Potentially effective PTSD treatment approaches include “self-soothing” or “self-regulating” techniques such as exercise, meditation, yoga, and working with animals, she added.

Dr. Ritchie pointed out the numbers of participants in the study were relatively small, including two groups that had only 54 patients each.

And while the GLE/PIB combination should be explored further, cost, availability, and side effects of this medication need to be taken into consideration, she said.

Dr. Ritchie added she is not overly concerned that the mechanism of action for the combination on PTSD may not be well understood. She noted several psychiatric medications fall into that category, including electroconvulsive therapy and lithium.

“When lithium was first found to be effective against bipolar disorder, we had no clue why,” she said. “So I would not discount the antiviral based on us not knowing how it works.”

However, “we’re a long way off” from starting a patient with PTSD on an antiviral, said Dr. Ritchie, adding there are “a lot of steps to go through” to get FDA approval.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. The cohort used for this study was developed through support from the Department of Defense. Dr. Shiner is a coinventor on a provisional patent application covering the use of glecaprevir, pibrentasvir, and velpatasvir for PTSD and other psychiatric indications. Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of the two antiviral medications glecaprevir and pibrentasvir (Mavyret) is linked to improved symptoms in posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.

A national cohort study of U.S. Veterans Affairs patients included more than 250 participants with PTSD and comorbid hepatitis C virus.

Results showed the glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) combo was more strongly associated with PTSD symptom improvement than other antiviral combinations tested in the study, including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir.

“While there are great treatments available for PTSD, there’s a lot of desire in the field to find a new medication that will be helpful,” lead author Brian Shiner, MD, acting associate chief of staff for research, VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt., told this news organization.

“We had a great opportunity to use a novel data mining method to look in a wonderful database for a new treatment and we found something very promising,” said Dr. Shiner, who is also an associate professor of psychiatry at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
 

Common psychiatric disorder

PTSD is one of the most common psychiatric disorders, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 6.4% in the United States. Yet only two drugs, the SSRIs sertraline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil), have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat PTSD.

The VA recommends trauma-based psychotherapy, such as prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy, as first-line treatments for PTSD. However, not all patents respond to or have access to these approaches, said Dr. Shiner.

The investigators wanted to examine whether existing medications might reduce PTSD symptoms. Their previous exploratory study used “data mining” of national VA medical records.

Results from that study showed the three hepatitis C antivirals of GLE (an NS3/4A protease inhibitor), PIB (a NS5A protein inhibitor), and velpatasvir (another NS5A protein inhibitor) were associated with more than double the expected number of patients experiencing a clinically meaningful improvement in PTSD symptoms.

Sertraline was associated with only a slightly higher than expected improvement.

“SSRIs are effective, better than placebo, but the effects are not as good as we would hope,” Dr. Shiner said.

He noted that GLE and PIB are always prescribed together (Mavyret), whereas velpatasvir is commonly prescribed with the NS5B polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir under the brand name Epclusa. Sofosbuvir is also commonly prescribed with the NS5A protein inhibitor ledipasvir under the brand name Harvoni.
 

Strong association

The new study included 253 VA users with a diagnosis of PTSD and hepatitis C. Of these, 54 were receiving GLE/PIB, 145 were receiving ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, and 54 were receiving sofosbuvir/velpatasvir.

Researchers compared the groups with respect to change over 8-12 weeks on the PTSD Checklist (PCL), a 20-item self-report scale.

In adjusted analyses, the largest mean improvement on the PCL was 14.9 points for the GLE/PIB group and the smallest adjusted mean improvement on the PCL was 7.5 points for the ledipasvir/sofosbuvir group (mean difference, 7.34 points; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-13.63).

The adjusted proportion of patients improving by 15 points or more on the PCL was highest for the GLE/PIB group at 43.6% and lowest for the ledipasvir/sofosbuvir group at 26.3%.

Even when accounting for patients receiving trauma-based therapy or SSRIs, “it still looks like there’s a strong association of the hepatitis C antivirals with PTSD symptom improvement,” said Dr. Shiner.

Researchers also carried out a sensitivity analysis among only patients who were cured of HCV (over 90% of the total sample), defined as having an undetectable HCV viral load up to a year after completion of therapy. The analysis showed PTSD outcomes were still superior for participants receiving GLE/PIB.

“The sensitivity analysis was not that robust because almost everyone was cured, so it included almost everybody, but it didn’t point us away from the possibility of an off-target effect,” Dr. Shiner said.

Why antivirals may improve PTSD symptoms is not clear, but they may affect the immune response in patients with hepatitis C – and there may also be an immune response in PTSD, he noted. “Some of those factors may be shared, and that could explain some of the off-target effect.”

However, he noted the GLE/PIB drug combination is costly and patients with PTSD can probably access it only through enrolling in a study.

“We are not recommending that people go out and purchase this very expensive drug to treat their PTSD at this point,” Dr. Shiner said.

He added that the research team has now received funding from the Department of Defense to conduct a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of GLE/PIB as a potential treatment for PTSD.
 

Promising potential treatment

PTSD expert Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, D.C., said the results suggest GLE/PIB is a promising potential treatment for PTSD.

“I definitely think this should be looked at further,” said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that current PTSD therapies have drawbacks. SSRIs have side effects, the most “troubling” being sexual dysfunction. And although cognitive-behavioral therapy is effective, “people have to stick with it” and studies show about two thirds of patients drop out, she said.

Potentially effective PTSD treatment approaches include “self-soothing” or “self-regulating” techniques such as exercise, meditation, yoga, and working with animals, she added.

Dr. Ritchie pointed out the numbers of participants in the study were relatively small, including two groups that had only 54 patients each.

And while the GLE/PIB combination should be explored further, cost, availability, and side effects of this medication need to be taken into consideration, she said.

Dr. Ritchie added she is not overly concerned that the mechanism of action for the combination on PTSD may not be well understood. She noted several psychiatric medications fall into that category, including electroconvulsive therapy and lithium.

“When lithium was first found to be effective against bipolar disorder, we had no clue why,” she said. “So I would not discount the antiviral based on us not knowing how it works.”

However, “we’re a long way off” from starting a patient with PTSD on an antiviral, said Dr. Ritchie, adding there are “a lot of steps to go through” to get FDA approval.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. The cohort used for this study was developed through support from the Department of Defense. Dr. Shiner is a coinventor on a provisional patent application covering the use of glecaprevir, pibrentasvir, and velpatasvir for PTSD and other psychiatric indications. Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lauren G. Cliffel, MSW, looks forward to the upcoming 2022 Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) annual meeting and the opportunity to connect in-person with social workers, physicians, nurses, cancer navigators, and other cancer care providers who share a mission to establish and expand oncology programs for veterans. 

The theme of this year's annual meeting is "Your Best Version: Self-care in Cancer Care." Sessions include a discussion by a cancer care provider who was also a cancer patient, as well as presentations on the VA Whole Health initiative, survivorship, palliative care, and the Schwartz Rounds initiative. In addition, there will be sessions on self-care that include methods to address burnout and compassion fatigue.

Lauren G. Cliffel, MSW, looks forward to the upcoming 2022 Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) annual meeting and the opportunity to connect in-person with social workers, physicians, nurses, cancer navigators, and other cancer care providers who share a mission to establish and expand oncology programs for veterans. 

The theme of this year's annual meeting is "Your Best Version: Self-care in Cancer Care." Sessions include a discussion by a cancer care provider who was also a cancer patient, as well as presentations on the VA Whole Health initiative, survivorship, palliative care, and the Schwartz Rounds initiative. In addition, there will be sessions on self-care that include methods to address burnout and compassion fatigue.

Lauren G. Cliffel, MSW, looks forward to the upcoming 2022 Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) annual meeting and the opportunity to connect in-person with social workers, physicians, nurses, cancer navigators, and other cancer care providers who share a mission to establish and expand oncology programs for veterans. 

The theme of this year's annual meeting is "Your Best Version: Self-care in Cancer Care." Sessions include a discussion by a cancer care provider who was also a cancer patient, as well as presentations on the VA Whole Health initiative, survivorship, palliative care, and the Schwartz Rounds initiative. In addition, there will be sessions on self-care that include methods to address burnout and compassion fatigue.

Bernadette Heron, PharmD, provides a glance at activities planned for the approaching AVAHO 2022 annual meeting and announces with enthusiasm this year's theme: "Your Best Version: Self-care in Cancer Care."

Bringing self-care into the theater of clinically relevant issues is central to optimizing the care of patients with cancer, Dr Heron suggests. To this purpose, the structured sessions and interventions to be presented at AVAHO 2022 include a deep dive into burnout among practitioners as well as everyday clinical care issues.

Bernadette Heron, PharmD, provides a glance at activities planned for the approaching AVAHO 2022 annual meeting and announces with enthusiasm this year's theme: "Your Best Version: Self-care in Cancer Care."

Bringing self-care into the theater of clinically relevant issues is central to optimizing the care of patients with cancer, Dr Heron suggests. To this purpose, the structured sessions and interventions to be presented at AVAHO 2022 include a deep dive into burnout among practitioners as well as everyday clinical care issues.

Bernadette Heron, PharmD, provides a glance at activities planned for the approaching AVAHO 2022 annual meeting and announces with enthusiasm this year's theme: "Your Best Version: Self-care in Cancer Care."

Bringing self-care into the theater of clinically relevant issues is central to optimizing the care of patients with cancer, Dr Heron suggests. To this purpose, the structured sessions and interventions to be presented at AVAHO 2022 include a deep dive into burnout among practitioners as well as everyday clinical care issues.