Federal Practitioner

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.

At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.

Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.

“Prostate cancer paradoxically is a problem baked into the biology. Men get prostate cancer as they age,” Dr. James told this news organization. 

“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”

According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”

Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. 

“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”

Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.

Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.

Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.

Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.

In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London. 

“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.

He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.

“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.

In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”

Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.

At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.

Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.

“Prostate cancer paradoxically is a problem baked into the biology. Men get prostate cancer as they age,” Dr. James told this news organization. 

“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”

According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”

Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. 

“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”

Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.

Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.

Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.

Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.

In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London. 

“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.

He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.

“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.

In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”

Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.

At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.

Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.

“Prostate cancer paradoxically is a problem baked into the biology. Men get prostate cancer as they age,” Dr. James told this news organization. 

“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”

According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”

Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. 

“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”

Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.

Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.

Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.

Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.

In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London. 

“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.

He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.

“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.

In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”

Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Logan is a 62-year-old woman who has reached the pinnacle of professional success. She started a $50 million consumer products company and, after selling it, managed to develop another successful brand. She is healthy and happily married, with four adult children. And yet, despite all her achievements and stable family life, Logan was always bothered by her inability to lose weight. 

Despite peddling in beauty, she felt perpetually overweight and, frankly, unattractive. She has no family history of obesity, drinks minimal alcohol, and follows an (allegedly) healthy diet. Logan had tried “everything” to lose weight — human growth hormone injections (not prescribed by me), Ozempic-like medications, Belviq, etc. — all to no avail. 

Here’s the catch: After she finished with her busy days of meetings and spreadsheets, Logan sat down to read through countless emails and rewarded herself with all her favorite foods. Without realizing it, she often doubled her daily caloric intake in one sitting. She wasn’t hungry in these moments, rather just a little worn out and perhaps a little careless. She then proceeded to email her doctor (me) to report on this endless cycle of unwanted behavior. 

In January 2024, a novel study from Turkey examined the relationship between hedonic eating, self-condemnation, and self-esteem. Surprising to no one, the study determined that higher hedonic hunger scores were associated with lower self-esteem and an increased propensity to self-stigmatize.

Oprah could have handily predicted this conclusion. Many years ago, she described food as a fake friend: Perhaps you’ve had a long and difficult day. While you’re busy eating your feelings, the heaping plate of pasta feels like your best buddy in the world. However, the moment the plate is empty, you realize that you feel worse than before. Not only do you have to unbutton your new jeans, but you also realize that you have just lost your ability to self-regulate. 

While the positive association between hedonic eating and low self-esteem may seem self-evident, the solution is less obvious. Mindfulness is one possible approach to this issue. Mindfulness has been described as “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally” and has existed for thousands of years. Mindful eating, in particular, involves paying close attention to our food choices and how they affect our emotions, and typically includes some combination of:

• Slowing down eating/chewing thoroughly
• Eliminating distractions such as TV, computers, and phones — perhaps even eating in silence
• Eating only until physically satiated
• Distinguishing between true hunger and cravings
• Noticing the texture, flavors, and smell of food
• Paying attention to the effect of food on your mood
• Appreciating food

In our society, where processed food is so readily available and stress is so ubiquitous, eating can become a hedonic and fast-paced activity. Our brains don’t have time to process our bodies’ signals of fullness and, as a result, we often ingest many more calories than we need for a healthy lifestyle. 

If mindless eating is part of the problem, mindful eating is part of the solution. Indeed, a meta-review of 10 scientific studies showed that mindful eating is as effective as conventional weight loss programs in regard to body mass index and waist circumference. On the basis of these studies — as well as some good old-fashioned common sense — intuitive eating is an important component of sustainable weight reduction. 

Eventually, I convinced Logan to meet up with the psychologist in our group who specializes in emotional eating. Through weekly cognitive-behavioral therapy sessions, Logan was able to understand the impetus behind her self-defeating behavior and has finally been able to reverse some of her lifelong habits. Once she started practicing mindful eating, I was able to introduce Ozempic, and now Logan is happily shedding several pounds a week.

Dr. Messer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Messer is clinical assistant professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and associate professor, Hofstra School of Medicine, both in New York City.

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

Logan is a 62-year-old woman who has reached the pinnacle of professional success. She started a $50 million consumer products company and, after selling it, managed to develop another successful brand. She is healthy and happily married, with four adult children. And yet, despite all her achievements and stable family life, Logan was always bothered by her inability to lose weight. 

Despite peddling in beauty, she felt perpetually overweight and, frankly, unattractive. She has no family history of obesity, drinks minimal alcohol, and follows an (allegedly) healthy diet. Logan had tried “everything” to lose weight — human growth hormone injections (not prescribed by me), Ozempic-like medications, Belviq, etc. — all to no avail. 

Here’s the catch: After she finished with her busy days of meetings and spreadsheets, Logan sat down to read through countless emails and rewarded herself with all her favorite foods. Without realizing it, she often doubled her daily caloric intake in one sitting. She wasn’t hungry in these moments, rather just a little worn out and perhaps a little careless. She then proceeded to email her doctor (me) to report on this endless cycle of unwanted behavior. 

In January 2024, a novel study from Turkey examined the relationship between hedonic eating, self-condemnation, and self-esteem. Surprising to no one, the study determined that higher hedonic hunger scores were associated with lower self-esteem and an increased propensity to self-stigmatize.

Oprah could have handily predicted this conclusion. Many years ago, she described food as a fake friend: Perhaps you’ve had a long and difficult day. While you’re busy eating your feelings, the heaping plate of pasta feels like your best buddy in the world. However, the moment the plate is empty, you realize that you feel worse than before. Not only do you have to unbutton your new jeans, but you also realize that you have just lost your ability to self-regulate. 

While the positive association between hedonic eating and low self-esteem may seem self-evident, the solution is less obvious. Mindfulness is one possible approach to this issue. Mindfulness has been described as “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally” and has existed for thousands of years. Mindful eating, in particular, involves paying close attention to our food choices and how they affect our emotions, and typically includes some combination of:

• Slowing down eating/chewing thoroughly
• Eliminating distractions such as TV, computers, and phones — perhaps even eating in silence
• Eating only until physically satiated
• Distinguishing between true hunger and cravings
• Noticing the texture, flavors, and smell of food
• Paying attention to the effect of food on your mood
• Appreciating food

In our society, where processed food is so readily available and stress is so ubiquitous, eating can become a hedonic and fast-paced activity. Our brains don’t have time to process our bodies’ signals of fullness and, as a result, we often ingest many more calories than we need for a healthy lifestyle. 

If mindless eating is part of the problem, mindful eating is part of the solution. Indeed, a meta-review of 10 scientific studies showed that mindful eating is as effective as conventional weight loss programs in regard to body mass index and waist circumference. On the basis of these studies — as well as some good old-fashioned common sense — intuitive eating is an important component of sustainable weight reduction. 

Eventually, I convinced Logan to meet up with the psychologist in our group who specializes in emotional eating. Through weekly cognitive-behavioral therapy sessions, Logan was able to understand the impetus behind her self-defeating behavior and has finally been able to reverse some of her lifelong habits. Once she started practicing mindful eating, I was able to introduce Ozempic, and now Logan is happily shedding several pounds a week.

Dr. Messer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Messer is clinical assistant professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and associate professor, Hofstra School of Medicine, both in New York City.

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

Logan is a 62-year-old woman who has reached the pinnacle of professional success. She started a $50 million consumer products company and, after selling it, managed to develop another successful brand. She is healthy and happily married, with four adult children. And yet, despite all her achievements and stable family life, Logan was always bothered by her inability to lose weight. 

Despite peddling in beauty, she felt perpetually overweight and, frankly, unattractive. She has no family history of obesity, drinks minimal alcohol, and follows an (allegedly) healthy diet. Logan had tried “everything” to lose weight — human growth hormone injections (not prescribed by me), Ozempic-like medications, Belviq, etc. — all to no avail. 

Here’s the catch: After she finished with her busy days of meetings and spreadsheets, Logan sat down to read through countless emails and rewarded herself with all her favorite foods. Without realizing it, she often doubled her daily caloric intake in one sitting. She wasn’t hungry in these moments, rather just a little worn out and perhaps a little careless. She then proceeded to email her doctor (me) to report on this endless cycle of unwanted behavior. 

In January 2024, a novel study from Turkey examined the relationship between hedonic eating, self-condemnation, and self-esteem. Surprising to no one, the study determined that higher hedonic hunger scores were associated with lower self-esteem and an increased propensity to self-stigmatize.

Oprah could have handily predicted this conclusion. Many years ago, she described food as a fake friend: Perhaps you’ve had a long and difficult day. While you’re busy eating your feelings, the heaping plate of pasta feels like your best buddy in the world. However, the moment the plate is empty, you realize that you feel worse than before. Not only do you have to unbutton your new jeans, but you also realize that you have just lost your ability to self-regulate. 

While the positive association between hedonic eating and low self-esteem may seem self-evident, the solution is less obvious. Mindfulness is one possible approach to this issue. Mindfulness has been described as “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally” and has existed for thousands of years. Mindful eating, in particular, involves paying close attention to our food choices and how they affect our emotions, and typically includes some combination of:

• Slowing down eating/chewing thoroughly
• Eliminating distractions such as TV, computers, and phones — perhaps even eating in silence
• Eating only until physically satiated
• Distinguishing between true hunger and cravings
• Noticing the texture, flavors, and smell of food
• Paying attention to the effect of food on your mood
• Appreciating food

In our society, where processed food is so readily available and stress is so ubiquitous, eating can become a hedonic and fast-paced activity. Our brains don’t have time to process our bodies’ signals of fullness and, as a result, we often ingest many more calories than we need for a healthy lifestyle. 

If mindless eating is part of the problem, mindful eating is part of the solution. Indeed, a meta-review of 10 scientific studies showed that mindful eating is as effective as conventional weight loss programs in regard to body mass index and waist circumference. On the basis of these studies — as well as some good old-fashioned common sense — intuitive eating is an important component of sustainable weight reduction. 

Eventually, I convinced Logan to meet up with the psychologist in our group who specializes in emotional eating. Through weekly cognitive-behavioral therapy sessions, Logan was able to understand the impetus behind her self-defeating behavior and has finally been able to reverse some of her lifelong habits. Once she started practicing mindful eating, I was able to introduce Ozempic, and now Logan is happily shedding several pounds a week.

Dr. Messer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Messer is clinical assistant professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and associate professor, Hofstra School of Medicine, both in New York City.

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

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

This case is a little out of the ordinary, but we would love to find out how readers would handle it.

Diana is a 51-year-old woman with a history of depression, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. She has come in for a routine visit for her chronic illnesses. She seems very distant and has a flat affect during the initial interview. When you ask about any recent stressful events, she begins crying and explains that her daughter was just deported, leaving behind a child and boyfriend.

Their country of origin suffers from chronic instability and violence. Diana’s father was murdered there, and Diana was the victim of sexual assault. “I escaped when I was 18, and I tried to never look back. Until now.” Diana is very worried about her daughter’s return to that country. “I don’t want her to have to endure what I have endured.”

You spend some time discussing the patient’s mental health burden and identify a counselor and online resources that might help. You wonder if Diana’s adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) might have contributed to some of her physical illnesses.

ACEs and Adult Health

The effects of trauma run long and deep. ACEs have been associated with higher risks for multiple chronic conditions, even among adults aged 60 years or older. Therefore, clinicians should consider a patient’s history of ACEs as part of their evaluation of risk for chronic illness.

One of the most pronounced and straightforward links is that between ACEs and depression. In the Southern Community Cohort Study of more than 38,200 US adults, the highest odds ratio between ACEs and chronic disease was for depression. Persons who reported more than three ACEs had about a twofold increase in the risk for depression compared with persons without ACEs. There was a monotonic increase in the risk for depression and other chronic illnesses as the burden of ACEs increased.

In another study from the United Kingdom, each additional ACE was associated with a significant 11% increase in the risk for incident diabetes during adulthood. Researchers found that both depression symptoms and cardiometabolic dysfunction mediated the effects of ACEs in promoting higher rates of diabetes.

Depression and diabetes are significant risk factors for coronary artery disease, so it is not surprising that ACEs are also associated with a higher risk for coronary events. A review by Godoy and colleagues described how ACEs promote neuroendocrine, autonomic, and inflammatory dysfunction, which in turn leads to higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes and obesity. Ultimately, the presence of four or more ACEs is associated with more than a twofold higher risk for cardiovascular disease compared with no ACEs.

Many of the pathologic processes that promote cardiovascular disease also increase the risk for dementia. Could the reach of ACEs span decades to promote a higher risk for dementia among older adults? A study by Yuan and colleagues of 7222 Chinese adults suggests that the answer is yes. This study divided the cohort into persons with a history of no ACEs, household dysfunction during childhood, or mistreatment during childhood. Child mistreatment was associated with higher rates of diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular disease, as well as an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68) for cognitive impairment.

The magnitude of the effects ACEs can have on well-being is reinforced by epidemiologic data surrounding ACEs. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of US adults report at least one ACE and 17% experienced at least four ACEs. Risk factors for ACEs include being female, American Indian or Alaska Native, or unemployed.

How do we reduce the impact of ACEs? Prevention is key. The CDC estimates that nearly 2 million cases of adult heart disease and more than 20 million cases of adult depression could be avoided if ACEs were eliminated.

But what is the best means to pragmatically reduce ACEs in our current practice models? How do we discover a history of ACEs in patients, and what are the best practices in managing persons with a positive history? We will cover these critical subjects in a future article, but for now, please provide your own comments and pearls regarding the prevention and management of ACEs.

Dr. Vega, health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson and Johnson. Ms. Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This case is a little out of the ordinary, but we would love to find out how readers would handle it.

Diana is a 51-year-old woman with a history of depression, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. She has come in for a routine visit for her chronic illnesses. She seems very distant and has a flat affect during the initial interview. When you ask about any recent stressful events, she begins crying and explains that her daughter was just deported, leaving behind a child and boyfriend.

Their country of origin suffers from chronic instability and violence. Diana’s father was murdered there, and Diana was the victim of sexual assault. “I escaped when I was 18, and I tried to never look back. Until now.” Diana is very worried about her daughter’s return to that country. “I don’t want her to have to endure what I have endured.”

You spend some time discussing the patient’s mental health burden and identify a counselor and online resources that might help. You wonder if Diana’s adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) might have contributed to some of her physical illnesses.

ACEs and Adult Health

The effects of trauma run long and deep. ACEs have been associated with higher risks for multiple chronic conditions, even among adults aged 60 years or older. Therefore, clinicians should consider a patient’s history of ACEs as part of their evaluation of risk for chronic illness.

One of the most pronounced and straightforward links is that between ACEs and depression. In the Southern Community Cohort Study of more than 38,200 US adults, the highest odds ratio between ACEs and chronic disease was for depression. Persons who reported more than three ACEs had about a twofold increase in the risk for depression compared with persons without ACEs. There was a monotonic increase in the risk for depression and other chronic illnesses as the burden of ACEs increased.

In another study from the United Kingdom, each additional ACE was associated with a significant 11% increase in the risk for incident diabetes during adulthood. Researchers found that both depression symptoms and cardiometabolic dysfunction mediated the effects of ACEs in promoting higher rates of diabetes.

Depression and diabetes are significant risk factors for coronary artery disease, so it is not surprising that ACEs are also associated with a higher risk for coronary events. A review by Godoy and colleagues described how ACEs promote neuroendocrine, autonomic, and inflammatory dysfunction, which in turn leads to higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes and obesity. Ultimately, the presence of four or more ACEs is associated with more than a twofold higher risk for cardiovascular disease compared with no ACEs.

Many of the pathologic processes that promote cardiovascular disease also increase the risk for dementia. Could the reach of ACEs span decades to promote a higher risk for dementia among older adults? A study by Yuan and colleagues of 7222 Chinese adults suggests that the answer is yes. This study divided the cohort into persons with a history of no ACEs, household dysfunction during childhood, or mistreatment during childhood. Child mistreatment was associated with higher rates of diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular disease, as well as an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68) for cognitive impairment.

The magnitude of the effects ACEs can have on well-being is reinforced by epidemiologic data surrounding ACEs. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of US adults report at least one ACE and 17% experienced at least four ACEs. Risk factors for ACEs include being female, American Indian or Alaska Native, or unemployed.

How do we reduce the impact of ACEs? Prevention is key. The CDC estimates that nearly 2 million cases of adult heart disease and more than 20 million cases of adult depression could be avoided if ACEs were eliminated.

But what is the best means to pragmatically reduce ACEs in our current practice models? How do we discover a history of ACEs in patients, and what are the best practices in managing persons with a positive history? We will cover these critical subjects in a future article, but for now, please provide your own comments and pearls regarding the prevention and management of ACEs.

Dr. Vega, health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson and Johnson. Ms. Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This case is a little out of the ordinary, but we would love to find out how readers would handle it.

Diana is a 51-year-old woman with a history of depression, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. She has come in for a routine visit for her chronic illnesses. She seems very distant and has a flat affect during the initial interview. When you ask about any recent stressful events, she begins crying and explains that her daughter was just deported, leaving behind a child and boyfriend.

Their country of origin suffers from chronic instability and violence. Diana’s father was murdered there, and Diana was the victim of sexual assault. “I escaped when I was 18, and I tried to never look back. Until now.” Diana is very worried about her daughter’s return to that country. “I don’t want her to have to endure what I have endured.”

You spend some time discussing the patient’s mental health burden and identify a counselor and online resources that might help. You wonder if Diana’s adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) might have contributed to some of her physical illnesses.

ACEs and Adult Health

The effects of trauma run long and deep. ACEs have been associated with higher risks for multiple chronic conditions, even among adults aged 60 years or older. Therefore, clinicians should consider a patient’s history of ACEs as part of their evaluation of risk for chronic illness.

One of the most pronounced and straightforward links is that between ACEs and depression. In the Southern Community Cohort Study of more than 38,200 US adults, the highest odds ratio between ACEs and chronic disease was for depression. Persons who reported more than three ACEs had about a twofold increase in the risk for depression compared with persons without ACEs. There was a monotonic increase in the risk for depression and other chronic illnesses as the burden of ACEs increased.

In another study from the United Kingdom, each additional ACE was associated with a significant 11% increase in the risk for incident diabetes during adulthood. Researchers found that both depression symptoms and cardiometabolic dysfunction mediated the effects of ACEs in promoting higher rates of diabetes.

Depression and diabetes are significant risk factors for coronary artery disease, so it is not surprising that ACEs are also associated with a higher risk for coronary events. A review by Godoy and colleagues described how ACEs promote neuroendocrine, autonomic, and inflammatory dysfunction, which in turn leads to higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes and obesity. Ultimately, the presence of four or more ACEs is associated with more than a twofold higher risk for cardiovascular disease compared with no ACEs.

Many of the pathologic processes that promote cardiovascular disease also increase the risk for dementia. Could the reach of ACEs span decades to promote a higher risk for dementia among older adults? A study by Yuan and colleagues of 7222 Chinese adults suggests that the answer is yes. This study divided the cohort into persons with a history of no ACEs, household dysfunction during childhood, or mistreatment during childhood. Child mistreatment was associated with higher rates of diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular disease, as well as an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68) for cognitive impairment.

The magnitude of the effects ACEs can have on well-being is reinforced by epidemiologic data surrounding ACEs. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of US adults report at least one ACE and 17% experienced at least four ACEs. Risk factors for ACEs include being female, American Indian or Alaska Native, or unemployed.

How do we reduce the impact of ACEs? Prevention is key. The CDC estimates that nearly 2 million cases of adult heart disease and more than 20 million cases of adult depression could be avoided if ACEs were eliminated.

But what is the best means to pragmatically reduce ACEs in our current practice models? How do we discover a history of ACEs in patients, and what are the best practices in managing persons with a positive history? We will cover these critical subjects in a future article, but for now, please provide your own comments and pearls regarding the prevention and management of ACEs.

Dr. Vega, health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson and Johnson. Ms. Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to pesticides is associated with an increased risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, according to two French studies presented at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology. One of them, a case-control study, showed an elevated risk in individuals whose adipose tissue contained substances that are now banned.

“The association between pesticides and pancreatic cancer exists. It is of low magnitude but robust, concerning cumulative pesticides and three substances: Mancozeb, glyphosate, and sulfur in spray form,” said Mathias Brugel, MD, hospital practitioner at Basque Coast Hospital Center in Bayonne, France, during his presentation.

Regarding the four other liposoluble substances associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the second study, “their use has been banned since the 1990s, but they are still present in soils and in the air,” Dr. Brugel told this news organization.

For example, in Reims, France, the assessment of air quality by ATMO Grand Est revealed the presence of banned pesticides in the air, he added. However, Dr. Brugel stressed that a cause-effect relationship between pesticide exposure and the risk for pancreatic cancer cannot be established with these studies.
 

Incidence Rising Constantly

The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been increasing steadily for more than 30 years. In France, nearly 16,000 new cases were reported in 2023, which represented an annual increase of about 2%. According to the National Cancer Institute, “pancreatic adenocarcinoma could become the second leading cause of cancer mortality by 2030.”

“This increase in incidence is particularly strong in France compared with other Western countries. The causes are still poorly understood. One might wonder whether environmental factors like pesticides are involved,” said Dr. Brugel.

Known to have a mechanism of action favoring oncogenesis, pesticides are suspected of being responsible for the rise in certain cancers, especially given their extensive use in France. In total, around 300 substances are authorized, and 65,000 tons are applied each year, making France the largest consumer of pesticides in Europe.

“Contamination is ubiquitous, meaning they are found in soil, water, air, and in individuals,” said Dr. Brugel. According to a study by the Institute for Scientific Expertise Research, pesticide residues were detected in 64% of hair samples taken from French volunteers.

The literature increasingly reported data suggesting a link between pesticide exposure and the development of certain diseases like cancer. A 2021 document by Inserm notably confirmed the strong presumption of a link between occupational pesticide exposure and pathologies such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
 

High-Incidence Zones

To explore the link between pesticide exposure and pancreatic cancer, Dr. Brugel and his colleagues conducted the EcoPESTIPAC and PESTIPAC studies, the results of which were presented at this year’s conference.

In EcoPESTIPAC, researchers conducted a national ecological regression by dividing the entire French territory into 5529 spatial units. The number of pancreatic cancer cases per spatial unit per year (disease-mapping) was determined using the National Health Data System.

Nine chemicals, including glyphosate, were included, thus covering half of pesticide purchases in France. The cumulative quantity of pesticides, regardless of molecule, was also examined. Pesticide exposure was estimated by the median ratio between pesticide purchase and agricultural area per spatial unit over an 11-year period from early 2011 to the end of 2021.

Mor than 134,000 cases of pancreatic cancer were reported during this period. The analysis revealed three high-incidence zones located around Paris, in central France, and in the Mediterranean basin, while spatial units in the western region showed the lowest incidences.

The heterogeneous distribution of the disease suggests the involvement of risk factors, said Dr. Brugel. After adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking, the study showed an increased risk for pancreatic cancer associated with the cumulative quantity of pesticides and three specific substances: Sulfur in spray form, mancozeb, and glyphosate.
 

Risk Increases

A dose-response relationship was evident. For an increase in pesticide use of 2.5 kg/hectare over 11 years, the risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma increased from 0.9% to 1.4%. “The increase is relatively small, but one must not forget that this risk applies to all of France,” said Dr. Brugel. Indeed, the risk appeared homogeneous across the entire territory.

This was the first study to explore this link at the national level. Although the association between the four identified factors and pancreatic risk was robust, the study had some limitations. It relied on the quantities of pesticides purchased to estimate the quantities used, Dr. Brugel pointed out.

The second study, PESTIPAC, was a case-control study conducted at the Reims University Hospital to explore the association between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in fat and urine.

The study included 26 patients with pancreatic cancer who had abdominal surgery that allowed for adipose tissue sampling (minimum 10 g). Urine was collected in the morning on an empty stomach.

A control group was formed by including 26 other patients who underwent surgery for a benign abdominal condition such as gallstones or hernia, thus allowing for the same sampling. Individuals in both groups were matched for age and body mass index, two risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
 

Banned Substances

In total, 345 substances were searched for using chromatography and mass spectrometry. Analyses revealed the presence of five banned substances in all patients, while nine substances were found in half of the samples.

“Contamination is very widespread, both in patients with pancreatic cancer and in the controls,” said Dr. Brugel. Consequently, for this study, between-group comparisons of substances present in all individuals could not be performed.

After adjustment, an association with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer was nonetheless observed with four liposoluble substances: 4,4-DDE, mirex or perchlordecone, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. All four substances are herbicides that have been banned for at least 30 years.

The study also aimed to assess the effect of pesticide presence in the body on survival after pancreatic cancer. The results showed no significant difference for overall survival or progression-free survival.

“Pesticides are a credible candidate to explain the increase in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” said Dr. Brugel. However, “if associations between pancreatic cancer and pesticides exist, they remain poorly understood, and it is difficult to establish clear causality.”

Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm these associations. An evaluation of the general population’s exposure to banned substances also appears justified, according to the researchers.

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

Exposure to pesticides is associated with an increased risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, according to two French studies presented at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology. One of them, a case-control study, showed an elevated risk in individuals whose adipose tissue contained substances that are now banned.

“The association between pesticides and pancreatic cancer exists. It is of low magnitude but robust, concerning cumulative pesticides and three substances: Mancozeb, glyphosate, and sulfur in spray form,” said Mathias Brugel, MD, hospital practitioner at Basque Coast Hospital Center in Bayonne, France, during his presentation.

Regarding the four other liposoluble substances associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the second study, “their use has been banned since the 1990s, but they are still present in soils and in the air,” Dr. Brugel told this news organization.

For example, in Reims, France, the assessment of air quality by ATMO Grand Est revealed the presence of banned pesticides in the air, he added. However, Dr. Brugel stressed that a cause-effect relationship between pesticide exposure and the risk for pancreatic cancer cannot be established with these studies.
 

Incidence Rising Constantly

The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been increasing steadily for more than 30 years. In France, nearly 16,000 new cases were reported in 2023, which represented an annual increase of about 2%. According to the National Cancer Institute, “pancreatic adenocarcinoma could become the second leading cause of cancer mortality by 2030.”

“This increase in incidence is particularly strong in France compared with other Western countries. The causes are still poorly understood. One might wonder whether environmental factors like pesticides are involved,” said Dr. Brugel.

Known to have a mechanism of action favoring oncogenesis, pesticides are suspected of being responsible for the rise in certain cancers, especially given their extensive use in France. In total, around 300 substances are authorized, and 65,000 tons are applied each year, making France the largest consumer of pesticides in Europe.

“Contamination is ubiquitous, meaning they are found in soil, water, air, and in individuals,” said Dr. Brugel. According to a study by the Institute for Scientific Expertise Research, pesticide residues were detected in 64% of hair samples taken from French volunteers.

The literature increasingly reported data suggesting a link between pesticide exposure and the development of certain diseases like cancer. A 2021 document by Inserm notably confirmed the strong presumption of a link between occupational pesticide exposure and pathologies such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
 

High-Incidence Zones

To explore the link between pesticide exposure and pancreatic cancer, Dr. Brugel and his colleagues conducted the EcoPESTIPAC and PESTIPAC studies, the results of which were presented at this year’s conference.

In EcoPESTIPAC, researchers conducted a national ecological regression by dividing the entire French territory into 5529 spatial units. The number of pancreatic cancer cases per spatial unit per year (disease-mapping) was determined using the National Health Data System.

Nine chemicals, including glyphosate, were included, thus covering half of pesticide purchases in France. The cumulative quantity of pesticides, regardless of molecule, was also examined. Pesticide exposure was estimated by the median ratio between pesticide purchase and agricultural area per spatial unit over an 11-year period from early 2011 to the end of 2021.

Mor than 134,000 cases of pancreatic cancer were reported during this period. The analysis revealed three high-incidence zones located around Paris, in central France, and in the Mediterranean basin, while spatial units in the western region showed the lowest incidences.

The heterogeneous distribution of the disease suggests the involvement of risk factors, said Dr. Brugel. After adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking, the study showed an increased risk for pancreatic cancer associated with the cumulative quantity of pesticides and three specific substances: Sulfur in spray form, mancozeb, and glyphosate.
 

Risk Increases

A dose-response relationship was evident. For an increase in pesticide use of 2.5 kg/hectare over 11 years, the risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma increased from 0.9% to 1.4%. “The increase is relatively small, but one must not forget that this risk applies to all of France,” said Dr. Brugel. Indeed, the risk appeared homogeneous across the entire territory.

This was the first study to explore this link at the national level. Although the association between the four identified factors and pancreatic risk was robust, the study had some limitations. It relied on the quantities of pesticides purchased to estimate the quantities used, Dr. Brugel pointed out.

The second study, PESTIPAC, was a case-control study conducted at the Reims University Hospital to explore the association between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in fat and urine.

The study included 26 patients with pancreatic cancer who had abdominal surgery that allowed for adipose tissue sampling (minimum 10 g). Urine was collected in the morning on an empty stomach.

A control group was formed by including 26 other patients who underwent surgery for a benign abdominal condition such as gallstones or hernia, thus allowing for the same sampling. Individuals in both groups were matched for age and body mass index, two risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
 

Banned Substances

In total, 345 substances were searched for using chromatography and mass spectrometry. Analyses revealed the presence of five banned substances in all patients, while nine substances were found in half of the samples.

“Contamination is very widespread, both in patients with pancreatic cancer and in the controls,” said Dr. Brugel. Consequently, for this study, between-group comparisons of substances present in all individuals could not be performed.

After adjustment, an association with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer was nonetheless observed with four liposoluble substances: 4,4-DDE, mirex or perchlordecone, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. All four substances are herbicides that have been banned for at least 30 years.

The study also aimed to assess the effect of pesticide presence in the body on survival after pancreatic cancer. The results showed no significant difference for overall survival or progression-free survival.

“Pesticides are a credible candidate to explain the increase in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” said Dr. Brugel. However, “if associations between pancreatic cancer and pesticides exist, they remain poorly understood, and it is difficult to establish clear causality.”

Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm these associations. An evaluation of the general population’s exposure to banned substances also appears justified, according to the researchers.

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

Exposure to pesticides is associated with an increased risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, according to two French studies presented at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology. One of them, a case-control study, showed an elevated risk in individuals whose adipose tissue contained substances that are now banned.

“The association between pesticides and pancreatic cancer exists. It is of low magnitude but robust, concerning cumulative pesticides and three substances: Mancozeb, glyphosate, and sulfur in spray form,” said Mathias Brugel, MD, hospital practitioner at Basque Coast Hospital Center in Bayonne, France, during his presentation.

Regarding the four other liposoluble substances associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the second study, “their use has been banned since the 1990s, but they are still present in soils and in the air,” Dr. Brugel told this news organization.

For example, in Reims, France, the assessment of air quality by ATMO Grand Est revealed the presence of banned pesticides in the air, he added. However, Dr. Brugel stressed that a cause-effect relationship between pesticide exposure and the risk for pancreatic cancer cannot be established with these studies.
 

Incidence Rising Constantly

The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been increasing steadily for more than 30 years. In France, nearly 16,000 new cases were reported in 2023, which represented an annual increase of about 2%. According to the National Cancer Institute, “pancreatic adenocarcinoma could become the second leading cause of cancer mortality by 2030.”

“This increase in incidence is particularly strong in France compared with other Western countries. The causes are still poorly understood. One might wonder whether environmental factors like pesticides are involved,” said Dr. Brugel.

Known to have a mechanism of action favoring oncogenesis, pesticides are suspected of being responsible for the rise in certain cancers, especially given their extensive use in France. In total, around 300 substances are authorized, and 65,000 tons are applied each year, making France the largest consumer of pesticides in Europe.

“Contamination is ubiquitous, meaning they are found in soil, water, air, and in individuals,” said Dr. Brugel. According to a study by the Institute for Scientific Expertise Research, pesticide residues were detected in 64% of hair samples taken from French volunteers.

The literature increasingly reported data suggesting a link between pesticide exposure and the development of certain diseases like cancer. A 2021 document by Inserm notably confirmed the strong presumption of a link between occupational pesticide exposure and pathologies such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
 

High-Incidence Zones

To explore the link between pesticide exposure and pancreatic cancer, Dr. Brugel and his colleagues conducted the EcoPESTIPAC and PESTIPAC studies, the results of which were presented at this year’s conference.

In EcoPESTIPAC, researchers conducted a national ecological regression by dividing the entire French territory into 5529 spatial units. The number of pancreatic cancer cases per spatial unit per year (disease-mapping) was determined using the National Health Data System.

Nine chemicals, including glyphosate, were included, thus covering half of pesticide purchases in France. The cumulative quantity of pesticides, regardless of molecule, was also examined. Pesticide exposure was estimated by the median ratio between pesticide purchase and agricultural area per spatial unit over an 11-year period from early 2011 to the end of 2021.

Mor than 134,000 cases of pancreatic cancer were reported during this period. The analysis revealed three high-incidence zones located around Paris, in central France, and in the Mediterranean basin, while spatial units in the western region showed the lowest incidences.

The heterogeneous distribution of the disease suggests the involvement of risk factors, said Dr. Brugel. After adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking, the study showed an increased risk for pancreatic cancer associated with the cumulative quantity of pesticides and three specific substances: Sulfur in spray form, mancozeb, and glyphosate.
 

Risk Increases

A dose-response relationship was evident. For an increase in pesticide use of 2.5 kg/hectare over 11 years, the risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma increased from 0.9% to 1.4%. “The increase is relatively small, but one must not forget that this risk applies to all of France,” said Dr. Brugel. Indeed, the risk appeared homogeneous across the entire territory.

This was the first study to explore this link at the national level. Although the association between the four identified factors and pancreatic risk was robust, the study had some limitations. It relied on the quantities of pesticides purchased to estimate the quantities used, Dr. Brugel pointed out.

The second study, PESTIPAC, was a case-control study conducted at the Reims University Hospital to explore the association between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in fat and urine.

The study included 26 patients with pancreatic cancer who had abdominal surgery that allowed for adipose tissue sampling (minimum 10 g). Urine was collected in the morning on an empty stomach.

A control group was formed by including 26 other patients who underwent surgery for a benign abdominal condition such as gallstones or hernia, thus allowing for the same sampling. Individuals in both groups were matched for age and body mass index, two risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
 

Banned Substances

In total, 345 substances were searched for using chromatography and mass spectrometry. Analyses revealed the presence of five banned substances in all patients, while nine substances were found in half of the samples.

“Contamination is very widespread, both in patients with pancreatic cancer and in the controls,” said Dr. Brugel. Consequently, for this study, between-group comparisons of substances present in all individuals could not be performed.

After adjustment, an association with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer was nonetheless observed with four liposoluble substances: 4,4-DDE, mirex or perchlordecone, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. All four substances are herbicides that have been banned for at least 30 years.

The study also aimed to assess the effect of pesticide presence in the body on survival after pancreatic cancer. The results showed no significant difference for overall survival or progression-free survival.

“Pesticides are a credible candidate to explain the increase in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” said Dr. Brugel. However, “if associations between pancreatic cancer and pesticides exist, they remain poorly understood, and it is difficult to establish clear causality.”

Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm these associations. An evaluation of the general population’s exposure to banned substances also appears justified, according to the researchers.

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

At first glance, hematologists may not seem like they’d be likely to get urgent calls from the emergency department at 3 a.m. After all, they typically work during normal business hours. However, severe medical crises in blood-cancer patients can occur, and drowsy hematologists may find themselves providing guidance to emergency physicians about how to deal with rapidly deteriorating patients.

When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.

In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.

Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
 

Leukocytosis

Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.

“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”

Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.

“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”

Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.

There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
 

Tumor lysis syndrome

While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”

It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
 

Differentiation syndrome

According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.

A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”

In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.

“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”

In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.

Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.

At first glance, hematologists may not seem like they’d be likely to get urgent calls from the emergency department at 3 a.m. After all, they typically work during normal business hours. However, severe medical crises in blood-cancer patients can occur, and drowsy hematologists may find themselves providing guidance to emergency physicians about how to deal with rapidly deteriorating patients.

When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.

In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.

Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
 

Leukocytosis

Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.

“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”

Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.

“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”

Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.

There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
 

Tumor lysis syndrome

While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”

It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
 

Differentiation syndrome

According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.

A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”

In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.

“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”

In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.

Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.

At first glance, hematologists may not seem like they’d be likely to get urgent calls from the emergency department at 3 a.m. After all, they typically work during normal business hours. However, severe medical crises in blood-cancer patients can occur, and drowsy hematologists may find themselves providing guidance to emergency physicians about how to deal with rapidly deteriorating patients.

When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.

In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.

Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
 

Leukocytosis

Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.

“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”

Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.

“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”

Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.

There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
 

Tumor lysis syndrome

While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”

It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
 

Differentiation syndrome

According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.

A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”

In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.

“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”

In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.

Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.