Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Models using novel kidney and cardiac biomarkers were the most effective predictors of 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease patients, in a new study.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients may be at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but no ASCVD risk prediction models are currently in place to inform clinical care and prevention strategies, Joshua Bundy, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues wrote in their paper, published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

To improve the accuracy of ASCVD risk prediction, the researchers developed several models using data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. This longitudinal cohort study included more than 2,500 adult CKD patients. The participants’ ages ranged from 21-74 years, with the mean age having been 55.8 years, and 52.0% of the cohort was male.

Kidney function was defined using the glomerular filtration rate; the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of the study participants was 56.0 mL/min per 1.73m². The primary endpoint for the prediction models was incident ASCVD, defined as a composite of incident fatal or nonfatal stroke or MI.

A total of 252 incident ASCVD events occurred during the first 10 years of follow-up from baseline (1.9 events per 1,000 person-years). Patients with ASCVD events were more likely to be older, Black, and current smokers. They also were more likely than those who did not experience ASCVD events to have less than a college level education, to have a history of diabetes, and to use blood pressure–lowering medications.

“In our study, we created two new prediction tools for patients with CKD: the first is a simple model that includes factors routinely measured by health care providers and the second is an expanded model with additional variables particularly important to patients with CKD, including measures of long-term blood sugar, inflammation, and kidney and heart injury,” he explained. “We found that the new models are better able to classify patients who will or will not have a stroke or heart attack within 10 years, compared with the standard models. The new tools may better assist health care providers and patients with CKD in shared decision-making for prevention of heart disease.”
 

Results

The area under the curve for a prediction model using coefficients estimated within the CRIC sample was 0.736. This represented an accuracy higher than the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), which have shown an AUC of 0.730 (P = .03). The PCE were developed by the ACC and the AHA in 2013 to estimate ASCVD risk in the primary prevention population.

The second CRIC model that was developed using clinically available variables had an AUC of 0.760. However, the third CRIC biomarker-enriched model was even more effective, with an AUC of 0.771 – significantly higher than the clinical model (P = .001).

Model 1 included the ACC/AHA PCE variables with coefficients recalculated in the CRIC study sample. Model 2 (the CRIC Clinical Model) included age, HDL cholesterol, systolic BP, current smoking, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), hemoglobin A1c, and hemoglobin. Model 3 (the CRIC Enriched Model) included age, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, current smoking, urinary ACR, A1c, apolipoprotein B, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), troponin T, and N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).

Both the clinical and biomarker models improved reclassification of non-ASCVD events, compared with the PCEs (6.6% and 10.0%, respectively).

Several factors not included in prior prediction models were important for atherosclerotic CVD prediction among patients with CKD, the researchers noted. These included variables routinely measured in clinical practice as well as biomarkers: measures of long-term glycemia (A1c), inflammation (hsCRP), kidney injury (urinary ACR), and cardiac injury (troponin T and NT-proBNP).

Patients who had an ASCVD event had higher levels of A1c, systolic and diastolic BP, urinary ACR, troponin T, and NT-proBNP; these patients also had lower levels of HDL cholesterol, eGFR, and hemoglobin, compared with those who did not have an event.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the selection of study participants based on a single assessment of kidney function, who had an above average baseline ASCVD risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to include imaging variables in the models, and the overestimated risk in the highest predicted probability groups in the CRIC study.

However, the models significantly improve prediction beyond the ACC/AHA PCE in patients with CKD, they concluded.

 

Models may inform shared decision-making

The development of new prediction models is important, because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among U.S. adults and preventing CVD is a major public health challenge, lead author Dr. Bundy said in an interview.

“In an effort to prevent CVD, risk prediction equations can help identify patients who are at high risk for developing CVD and who may benefit from initiation or intensification of preventive and/or therapeutic measures. Simultaneously, chronic kidney disease is prevalent and those with CKD are often considered at high risk for CVD,” he said.

“However, common risk prediction tools were developed for the general population and may not work as well in patients with CKD, who may have different risk factors. Improving risk prediction in patients with CKD may help identify those among this growing population who are truly at high risk, as well as identify those who are at low risk and less likely to benefit from invasive procedures,” Dr. Bundy explained.
 

Glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor of atherosclerotic CVD

“One of the surprising findings was that estimated glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor and was not included in our final models,” Dr. Bundy said.

“We know that eGFR is a very important measurement in this population, but our results suggest that, at least in our sample, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio and cardiac biomarkers like troponin T and NT-proBNP are stronger predictors of atherosclerotic CVD in a population with reduced kidney function,” he said.

“Patient characteristics like age, blood pressure, and cholesterol are used by health care providers to predict whether a person will have a heart attack or stroke. However, most currently available prediction tools were not made for use in patients with CKD, which is a condition that is becoming more common and is likely to be seen by more health care providers in family practice,” said Dr. Bundy. “These people with CKD may have different risk factors for heart disease.”
 

Models are useful for clinical practice

“We are seeing rising numbers of patients with CKD in the population because of increasing age, rising rates of diabetes, and hypertension,” Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “The current practice of medicine does not have CKD-specific prediction models for ASCVD development, and current risks are calculated based on prediction models developed for the general population.”

Courtesy Dr. Noel Deep

“Having a prediction model that incorporates criteria/variables associated with CKD improves our ability to accurately identify and address the risk of ASCVD in this particular patient population,” said Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wisc.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital, also in Antigo.

“We always knew that CKD does place the individual at higher risk for developing ASCVD, but I was impressed by the significant improvement in the prediction models using CKD specific tools, such as cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP), intensity of diabetes control (A1c), tobacco use, urinary albuminuria, in addition to advancing age,” he said. “Many of the laboratory tests listed in this study are commonly available and can be easily incorporated into our evaluation for and management of ASCVD in our patients with CKD.”

“As a practicing primary care physician, I would say that this study emphasizes the importance of identifying and working toward mitigating the associated health risks that our patients with CKD might have coexisting and that significantly contribute to progression of CKD,” said Dr. Deep, who is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Wausau. “By addressing these risk factors, we can positively impact the health of our patients with CKD and decrease the morbidity and mortality, and health care costs. These predictive models can hopefully help us more accurately identify the risk of ASCVD thereby decreasing unnecessary diagnostic procedures and interventions which carry their own risks and morbidity.”

Looking ahead, “these predictive models should be assessed and validated in large studies in diverse populations and those with different risk factors for ASCVD because CKD can be caused by several different medical conditions each with potential to contribute to ASCVD,” Dr. Deep added.
 

Limitations and next steps

“Although we externally validated our models in two population-based cohort studies, the individuals in these datasets were selected based on only one assessment of kidney function,” Dr. Bundy noted. “Furthermore, the best practices for implementing risk prediction models in the clinic remain to be determined, especially as new models are developed.

“While our models show promising performance for predicting 10-year risk of atherosclerotic CVD, more clinical trials are needed to test implementation of these models for improving patient care and disease prevention.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Additional support came from the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Science Award, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences component of the National Institutes of Health and NIH roadmap for Medical Research, Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Tulane COBRE for Clinical and Translational Research in Cardiometabolic Diseases, Kaiser Permanente, and the University of New Mexico. Lead author Dr. Bundy was supported by the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 2/17/2021.

Models using novel kidney and cardiac biomarkers were the most effective predictors of 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease patients, in a new study.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients may be at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but no ASCVD risk prediction models are currently in place to inform clinical care and prevention strategies, Joshua Bundy, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues wrote in their paper, published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

To improve the accuracy of ASCVD risk prediction, the researchers developed several models using data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. This longitudinal cohort study included more than 2,500 adult CKD patients. The participants’ ages ranged from 21-74 years, with the mean age having been 55.8 years, and 52.0% of the cohort was male.

Kidney function was defined using the glomerular filtration rate; the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of the study participants was 56.0 mL/min per 1.73m². The primary endpoint for the prediction models was incident ASCVD, defined as a composite of incident fatal or nonfatal stroke or MI.

A total of 252 incident ASCVD events occurred during the first 10 years of follow-up from baseline (1.9 events per 1,000 person-years). Patients with ASCVD events were more likely to be older, Black, and current smokers. They also were more likely than those who did not experience ASCVD events to have less than a college level education, to have a history of diabetes, and to use blood pressure–lowering medications.

“In our study, we created two new prediction tools for patients with CKD: the first is a simple model that includes factors routinely measured by health care providers and the second is an expanded model with additional variables particularly important to patients with CKD, including measures of long-term blood sugar, inflammation, and kidney and heart injury,” he explained. “We found that the new models are better able to classify patients who will or will not have a stroke or heart attack within 10 years, compared with the standard models. The new tools may better assist health care providers and patients with CKD in shared decision-making for prevention of heart disease.”
 

Results

The area under the curve for a prediction model using coefficients estimated within the CRIC sample was 0.736. This represented an accuracy higher than the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), which have shown an AUC of 0.730 (P = .03). The PCE were developed by the ACC and the AHA in 2013 to estimate ASCVD risk in the primary prevention population.

The second CRIC model that was developed using clinically available variables had an AUC of 0.760. However, the third CRIC biomarker-enriched model was even more effective, with an AUC of 0.771 – significantly higher than the clinical model (P = .001).

Model 1 included the ACC/AHA PCE variables with coefficients recalculated in the CRIC study sample. Model 2 (the CRIC Clinical Model) included age, HDL cholesterol, systolic BP, current smoking, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), hemoglobin A1c, and hemoglobin. Model 3 (the CRIC Enriched Model) included age, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, current smoking, urinary ACR, A1c, apolipoprotein B, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), troponin T, and N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).

Both the clinical and biomarker models improved reclassification of non-ASCVD events, compared with the PCEs (6.6% and 10.0%, respectively).

Several factors not included in prior prediction models were important for atherosclerotic CVD prediction among patients with CKD, the researchers noted. These included variables routinely measured in clinical practice as well as biomarkers: measures of long-term glycemia (A1c), inflammation (hsCRP), kidney injury (urinary ACR), and cardiac injury (troponin T and NT-proBNP).

Patients who had an ASCVD event had higher levels of A1c, systolic and diastolic BP, urinary ACR, troponin T, and NT-proBNP; these patients also had lower levels of HDL cholesterol, eGFR, and hemoglobin, compared with those who did not have an event.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the selection of study participants based on a single assessment of kidney function, who had an above average baseline ASCVD risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to include imaging variables in the models, and the overestimated risk in the highest predicted probability groups in the CRIC study.

However, the models significantly improve prediction beyond the ACC/AHA PCE in patients with CKD, they concluded.

 

Models may inform shared decision-making

The development of new prediction models is important, because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among U.S. adults and preventing CVD is a major public health challenge, lead author Dr. Bundy said in an interview.

“In an effort to prevent CVD, risk prediction equations can help identify patients who are at high risk for developing CVD and who may benefit from initiation or intensification of preventive and/or therapeutic measures. Simultaneously, chronic kidney disease is prevalent and those with CKD are often considered at high risk for CVD,” he said.

“However, common risk prediction tools were developed for the general population and may not work as well in patients with CKD, who may have different risk factors. Improving risk prediction in patients with CKD may help identify those among this growing population who are truly at high risk, as well as identify those who are at low risk and less likely to benefit from invasive procedures,” Dr. Bundy explained.
 

Glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor of atherosclerotic CVD

“One of the surprising findings was that estimated glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor and was not included in our final models,” Dr. Bundy said.

“We know that eGFR is a very important measurement in this population, but our results suggest that, at least in our sample, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio and cardiac biomarkers like troponin T and NT-proBNP are stronger predictors of atherosclerotic CVD in a population with reduced kidney function,” he said.

“Patient characteristics like age, blood pressure, and cholesterol are used by health care providers to predict whether a person will have a heart attack or stroke. However, most currently available prediction tools were not made for use in patients with CKD, which is a condition that is becoming more common and is likely to be seen by more health care providers in family practice,” said Dr. Bundy. “These people with CKD may have different risk factors for heart disease.”
 

Models are useful for clinical practice

“We are seeing rising numbers of patients with CKD in the population because of increasing age, rising rates of diabetes, and hypertension,” Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “The current practice of medicine does not have CKD-specific prediction models for ASCVD development, and current risks are calculated based on prediction models developed for the general population.”

Courtesy Dr. Noel Deep

“Having a prediction model that incorporates criteria/variables associated with CKD improves our ability to accurately identify and address the risk of ASCVD in this particular patient population,” said Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wisc.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital, also in Antigo.

“We always knew that CKD does place the individual at higher risk for developing ASCVD, but I was impressed by the significant improvement in the prediction models using CKD specific tools, such as cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP), intensity of diabetes control (A1c), tobacco use, urinary albuminuria, in addition to advancing age,” he said. “Many of the laboratory tests listed in this study are commonly available and can be easily incorporated into our evaluation for and management of ASCVD in our patients with CKD.”

“As a practicing primary care physician, I would say that this study emphasizes the importance of identifying and working toward mitigating the associated health risks that our patients with CKD might have coexisting and that significantly contribute to progression of CKD,” said Dr. Deep, who is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Wausau. “By addressing these risk factors, we can positively impact the health of our patients with CKD and decrease the morbidity and mortality, and health care costs. These predictive models can hopefully help us more accurately identify the risk of ASCVD thereby decreasing unnecessary diagnostic procedures and interventions which carry their own risks and morbidity.”

Looking ahead, “these predictive models should be assessed and validated in large studies in diverse populations and those with different risk factors for ASCVD because CKD can be caused by several different medical conditions each with potential to contribute to ASCVD,” Dr. Deep added.
 

Limitations and next steps

“Although we externally validated our models in two population-based cohort studies, the individuals in these datasets were selected based on only one assessment of kidney function,” Dr. Bundy noted. “Furthermore, the best practices for implementing risk prediction models in the clinic remain to be determined, especially as new models are developed.

“While our models show promising performance for predicting 10-year risk of atherosclerotic CVD, more clinical trials are needed to test implementation of these models for improving patient care and disease prevention.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Additional support came from the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Science Award, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences component of the National Institutes of Health and NIH roadmap for Medical Research, Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Tulane COBRE for Clinical and Translational Research in Cardiometabolic Diseases, Kaiser Permanente, and the University of New Mexico. Lead author Dr. Bundy was supported by the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 2/17/2021.

Models using novel kidney and cardiac biomarkers were the most effective predictors of 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease patients, in a new study.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients may be at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but no ASCVD risk prediction models are currently in place to inform clinical care and prevention strategies, Joshua Bundy, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues wrote in their paper, published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

To improve the accuracy of ASCVD risk prediction, the researchers developed several models using data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. This longitudinal cohort study included more than 2,500 adult CKD patients. The participants’ ages ranged from 21-74 years, with the mean age having been 55.8 years, and 52.0% of the cohort was male.

Kidney function was defined using the glomerular filtration rate; the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of the study participants was 56.0 mL/min per 1.73m². The primary endpoint for the prediction models was incident ASCVD, defined as a composite of incident fatal or nonfatal stroke or MI.

A total of 252 incident ASCVD events occurred during the first 10 years of follow-up from baseline (1.9 events per 1,000 person-years). Patients with ASCVD events were more likely to be older, Black, and current smokers. They also were more likely than those who did not experience ASCVD events to have less than a college level education, to have a history of diabetes, and to use blood pressure–lowering medications.

“In our study, we created two new prediction tools for patients with CKD: the first is a simple model that includes factors routinely measured by health care providers and the second is an expanded model with additional variables particularly important to patients with CKD, including measures of long-term blood sugar, inflammation, and kidney and heart injury,” he explained. “We found that the new models are better able to classify patients who will or will not have a stroke or heart attack within 10 years, compared with the standard models. The new tools may better assist health care providers and patients with CKD in shared decision-making for prevention of heart disease.”
 

Results

The area under the curve for a prediction model using coefficients estimated within the CRIC sample was 0.736. This represented an accuracy higher than the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), which have shown an AUC of 0.730 (P = .03). The PCE were developed by the ACC and the AHA in 2013 to estimate ASCVD risk in the primary prevention population.

The second CRIC model that was developed using clinically available variables had an AUC of 0.760. However, the third CRIC biomarker-enriched model was even more effective, with an AUC of 0.771 – significantly higher than the clinical model (P = .001).

Model 1 included the ACC/AHA PCE variables with coefficients recalculated in the CRIC study sample. Model 2 (the CRIC Clinical Model) included age, HDL cholesterol, systolic BP, current smoking, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), hemoglobin A1c, and hemoglobin. Model 3 (the CRIC Enriched Model) included age, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, current smoking, urinary ACR, A1c, apolipoprotein B, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), troponin T, and N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).

Both the clinical and biomarker models improved reclassification of non-ASCVD events, compared with the PCEs (6.6% and 10.0%, respectively).

Several factors not included in prior prediction models were important for atherosclerotic CVD prediction among patients with CKD, the researchers noted. These included variables routinely measured in clinical practice as well as biomarkers: measures of long-term glycemia (A1c), inflammation (hsCRP), kidney injury (urinary ACR), and cardiac injury (troponin T and NT-proBNP).

Patients who had an ASCVD event had higher levels of A1c, systolic and diastolic BP, urinary ACR, troponin T, and NT-proBNP; these patients also had lower levels of HDL cholesterol, eGFR, and hemoglobin, compared with those who did not have an event.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the selection of study participants based on a single assessment of kidney function, who had an above average baseline ASCVD risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to include imaging variables in the models, and the overestimated risk in the highest predicted probability groups in the CRIC study.

However, the models significantly improve prediction beyond the ACC/AHA PCE in patients with CKD, they concluded.

 

Models may inform shared decision-making

The development of new prediction models is important, because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among U.S. adults and preventing CVD is a major public health challenge, lead author Dr. Bundy said in an interview.

“In an effort to prevent CVD, risk prediction equations can help identify patients who are at high risk for developing CVD and who may benefit from initiation or intensification of preventive and/or therapeutic measures. Simultaneously, chronic kidney disease is prevalent and those with CKD are often considered at high risk for CVD,” he said.

“However, common risk prediction tools were developed for the general population and may not work as well in patients with CKD, who may have different risk factors. Improving risk prediction in patients with CKD may help identify those among this growing population who are truly at high risk, as well as identify those who are at low risk and less likely to benefit from invasive procedures,” Dr. Bundy explained.
 

Glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor of atherosclerotic CVD

“One of the surprising findings was that estimated glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor and was not included in our final models,” Dr. Bundy said.

“We know that eGFR is a very important measurement in this population, but our results suggest that, at least in our sample, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio and cardiac biomarkers like troponin T and NT-proBNP are stronger predictors of atherosclerotic CVD in a population with reduced kidney function,” he said.

“Patient characteristics like age, blood pressure, and cholesterol are used by health care providers to predict whether a person will have a heart attack or stroke. However, most currently available prediction tools were not made for use in patients with CKD, which is a condition that is becoming more common and is likely to be seen by more health care providers in family practice,” said Dr. Bundy. “These people with CKD may have different risk factors for heart disease.”
 

Models are useful for clinical practice

“We are seeing rising numbers of patients with CKD in the population because of increasing age, rising rates of diabetes, and hypertension,” Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “The current practice of medicine does not have CKD-specific prediction models for ASCVD development, and current risks are calculated based on prediction models developed for the general population.”

Courtesy Dr. Noel Deep

“Having a prediction model that incorporates criteria/variables associated with CKD improves our ability to accurately identify and address the risk of ASCVD in this particular patient population,” said Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wisc.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital, also in Antigo.

“We always knew that CKD does place the individual at higher risk for developing ASCVD, but I was impressed by the significant improvement in the prediction models using CKD specific tools, such as cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP), intensity of diabetes control (A1c), tobacco use, urinary albuminuria, in addition to advancing age,” he said. “Many of the laboratory tests listed in this study are commonly available and can be easily incorporated into our evaluation for and management of ASCVD in our patients with CKD.”

“As a practicing primary care physician, I would say that this study emphasizes the importance of identifying and working toward mitigating the associated health risks that our patients with CKD might have coexisting and that significantly contribute to progression of CKD,” said Dr. Deep, who is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Wausau. “By addressing these risk factors, we can positively impact the health of our patients with CKD and decrease the morbidity and mortality, and health care costs. These predictive models can hopefully help us more accurately identify the risk of ASCVD thereby decreasing unnecessary diagnostic procedures and interventions which carry their own risks and morbidity.”

Looking ahead, “these predictive models should be assessed and validated in large studies in diverse populations and those with different risk factors for ASCVD because CKD can be caused by several different medical conditions each with potential to contribute to ASCVD,” Dr. Deep added.
 

Limitations and next steps

“Although we externally validated our models in two population-based cohort studies, the individuals in these datasets were selected based on only one assessment of kidney function,” Dr. Bundy noted. “Furthermore, the best practices for implementing risk prediction models in the clinic remain to be determined, especially as new models are developed.

“While our models show promising performance for predicting 10-year risk of atherosclerotic CVD, more clinical trials are needed to test implementation of these models for improving patient care and disease prevention.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Additional support came from the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Science Award, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences component of the National Institutes of Health and NIH roadmap for Medical Research, Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Tulane COBRE for Clinical and Translational Research in Cardiometabolic Diseases, Kaiser Permanente, and the University of New Mexico. Lead author Dr. Bundy was supported by the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 2/17/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

A 2021 update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines eliminated racial disparities that were prevalent in the group’s 2013 guidance, according to a report in JAMA Oncology.

Fewer Black people qualified for screening in the earlier guideline of which the majority of its participants were White. In response, the group changed the screening eligibility age from 55 to 50 years and lowered the smoking pack by year requirement from 30 to 20 years.

The changes showed that Black smokers tend to develop lung cancer earlier and with fewer pack-years than White smokers.
 

The study details

To gauge the impact, investigators from Wayne State University, Detroit, reviewed 912 patients with lung cancer and 1,457 controls without lung cancer to see who would have qualified for screening under the 2013 and 2021 criteria.

They were participants in the Detroit-area INHALE (Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology) study from 2012 to 2018. Over 30% were Black.

“Lowering the age and smoking criteria successfully bridged the gap in racial disparity,” said investigators led by Chan Yeu Pu, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Wayne State University.

With the 2021 criteria, 65% of White patients and 63% of Black patients with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening. Under the 2013 guidance, 52% of White patients were eligible for screening, but only 42% of Black patients.

The update also eliminated racial disparities among controls. The new guidance excluded 48% of White controls without lung cancer from screening and 50% of Black controls. The 2013 criteria excluded fewer White controls (61%) than Black control subjects (70%).

“As expected, broader inclusion criteria increased sensitivity, but at the cost of decreased specificity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Why is screening important?

The hope of screening is to catch lung cancer early, when curative surgical resection is still possible, the team wrote, but although screening has increased over the years, uptake remains dismal, just 5% in 2018, for instance.

In an editorial, Philadelphia-area thoracic surgeons Jonathan Nitz, MD, and Cherie Erkmen, MD, wrote that “multiple and changing criteria” and “nebulous payment plans” have made “for a confusing message. ... We need standardized” guidelines to deliver “a clear message about lung cancer screening.”

The fact that nearly two-thirds of lung cancer patients wouldn’t have qualified for screening under current guidelines also needs to be addressed. “We need standardized practice guidelines based on evidence from diverse populations and policies to ensure equitable access for high-risk individuals. Although this study demonstrates improved, calculated sensitivity of the 2021 USPSTF guidelines to detect lung cancer, these refinements of criteria do not address the nearly two-thirds of patients with diagnosed lung cancer who are not eligible for screening. There is a pressing need to redefine screening criteria,” Dr. Nitz and Dr. Erkmen wrote.

Both the 2013 and 2021 guidelines were outperformed in the study by the 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCOm2012 criteria), but only marginally so in the case of USPSTF’s 2021 guidance.

PLCOm2012 screening eligibility, however, are based on a complicated risk factor assessments that include race but also education level and other factors which might not be readily available in electronic records. USPSTF’s criteria “are much more straightforward to use in a clinical setting,” the investigators noted.

Study subjects were 21-89 years old and were in their early 60s, on average. Just over half were women. The analysis excluded lung cancer patients and controls who had never smoked.

The authors noted some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, plus, few lung cancers were diagnosed among the control group, which were not only small, but they did not include follow-ups with CT scans.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Herrick Foundation. Dr. Pu didn’t have any commercial disclosures. One investigator disclosed personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Erkmen reported an American Cancer Society-Pfizer Award to address disparities.

A 2021 update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines eliminated racial disparities that were prevalent in the group’s 2013 guidance, according to a report in JAMA Oncology.

Fewer Black people qualified for screening in the earlier guideline of which the majority of its participants were White. In response, the group changed the screening eligibility age from 55 to 50 years and lowered the smoking pack by year requirement from 30 to 20 years.

The changes showed that Black smokers tend to develop lung cancer earlier and with fewer pack-years than White smokers.
 

The study details

To gauge the impact, investigators from Wayne State University, Detroit, reviewed 912 patients with lung cancer and 1,457 controls without lung cancer to see who would have qualified for screening under the 2013 and 2021 criteria.

They were participants in the Detroit-area INHALE (Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology) study from 2012 to 2018. Over 30% were Black.

“Lowering the age and smoking criteria successfully bridged the gap in racial disparity,” said investigators led by Chan Yeu Pu, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Wayne State University.

With the 2021 criteria, 65% of White patients and 63% of Black patients with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening. Under the 2013 guidance, 52% of White patients were eligible for screening, but only 42% of Black patients.

The update also eliminated racial disparities among controls. The new guidance excluded 48% of White controls without lung cancer from screening and 50% of Black controls. The 2013 criteria excluded fewer White controls (61%) than Black control subjects (70%).

“As expected, broader inclusion criteria increased sensitivity, but at the cost of decreased specificity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Why is screening important?

The hope of screening is to catch lung cancer early, when curative surgical resection is still possible, the team wrote, but although screening has increased over the years, uptake remains dismal, just 5% in 2018, for instance.

In an editorial, Philadelphia-area thoracic surgeons Jonathan Nitz, MD, and Cherie Erkmen, MD, wrote that “multiple and changing criteria” and “nebulous payment plans” have made “for a confusing message. ... We need standardized” guidelines to deliver “a clear message about lung cancer screening.”

The fact that nearly two-thirds of lung cancer patients wouldn’t have qualified for screening under current guidelines also needs to be addressed. “We need standardized practice guidelines based on evidence from diverse populations and policies to ensure equitable access for high-risk individuals. Although this study demonstrates improved, calculated sensitivity of the 2021 USPSTF guidelines to detect lung cancer, these refinements of criteria do not address the nearly two-thirds of patients with diagnosed lung cancer who are not eligible for screening. There is a pressing need to redefine screening criteria,” Dr. Nitz and Dr. Erkmen wrote.

Both the 2013 and 2021 guidelines were outperformed in the study by the 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCOm2012 criteria), but only marginally so in the case of USPSTF’s 2021 guidance.

PLCOm2012 screening eligibility, however, are based on a complicated risk factor assessments that include race but also education level and other factors which might not be readily available in electronic records. USPSTF’s criteria “are much more straightforward to use in a clinical setting,” the investigators noted.

Study subjects were 21-89 years old and were in their early 60s, on average. Just over half were women. The analysis excluded lung cancer patients and controls who had never smoked.

The authors noted some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, plus, few lung cancers were diagnosed among the control group, which were not only small, but they did not include follow-ups with CT scans.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Herrick Foundation. Dr. Pu didn’t have any commercial disclosures. One investigator disclosed personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Erkmen reported an American Cancer Society-Pfizer Award to address disparities.

A 2021 update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines eliminated racial disparities that were prevalent in the group’s 2013 guidance, according to a report in JAMA Oncology.

Fewer Black people qualified for screening in the earlier guideline of which the majority of its participants were White. In response, the group changed the screening eligibility age from 55 to 50 years and lowered the smoking pack by year requirement from 30 to 20 years.

The changes showed that Black smokers tend to develop lung cancer earlier and with fewer pack-years than White smokers.
 

The study details

To gauge the impact, investigators from Wayne State University, Detroit, reviewed 912 patients with lung cancer and 1,457 controls without lung cancer to see who would have qualified for screening under the 2013 and 2021 criteria.

They were participants in the Detroit-area INHALE (Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology) study from 2012 to 2018. Over 30% were Black.

“Lowering the age and smoking criteria successfully bridged the gap in racial disparity,” said investigators led by Chan Yeu Pu, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Wayne State University.

With the 2021 criteria, 65% of White patients and 63% of Black patients with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening. Under the 2013 guidance, 52% of White patients were eligible for screening, but only 42% of Black patients.

The update also eliminated racial disparities among controls. The new guidance excluded 48% of White controls without lung cancer from screening and 50% of Black controls. The 2013 criteria excluded fewer White controls (61%) than Black control subjects (70%).

“As expected, broader inclusion criteria increased sensitivity, but at the cost of decreased specificity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Why is screening important?

The hope of screening is to catch lung cancer early, when curative surgical resection is still possible, the team wrote, but although screening has increased over the years, uptake remains dismal, just 5% in 2018, for instance.

In an editorial, Philadelphia-area thoracic surgeons Jonathan Nitz, MD, and Cherie Erkmen, MD, wrote that “multiple and changing criteria” and “nebulous payment plans” have made “for a confusing message. ... We need standardized” guidelines to deliver “a clear message about lung cancer screening.”

The fact that nearly two-thirds of lung cancer patients wouldn’t have qualified for screening under current guidelines also needs to be addressed. “We need standardized practice guidelines based on evidence from diverse populations and policies to ensure equitable access for high-risk individuals. Although this study demonstrates improved, calculated sensitivity of the 2021 USPSTF guidelines to detect lung cancer, these refinements of criteria do not address the nearly two-thirds of patients with diagnosed lung cancer who are not eligible for screening. There is a pressing need to redefine screening criteria,” Dr. Nitz and Dr. Erkmen wrote.

Both the 2013 and 2021 guidelines were outperformed in the study by the 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCOm2012 criteria), but only marginally so in the case of USPSTF’s 2021 guidance.

PLCOm2012 screening eligibility, however, are based on a complicated risk factor assessments that include race but also education level and other factors which might not be readily available in electronic records. USPSTF’s criteria “are much more straightforward to use in a clinical setting,” the investigators noted.

Study subjects were 21-89 years old and were in their early 60s, on average. Just over half were women. The analysis excluded lung cancer patients and controls who had never smoked.

The authors noted some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, plus, few lung cancers were diagnosed among the control group, which were not only small, but they did not include follow-ups with CT scans.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Herrick Foundation. Dr. Pu didn’t have any commercial disclosures. One investigator disclosed personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Erkmen reported an American Cancer Society-Pfizer Award to address disparities.

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

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

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

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

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

Ketamine is a rapid and effective treatment for suicidal ideation and has a “major” moderating effect based on the primary mental health diagnosis, results of a large randomized controlled trial show.

In addition, a strong effect of ketamine was observed in patients with bipolar disorder, “whereas the effect was moderate and did not quite reach significance in those with other psychiatric disorders and unexpectedly was nonsignificant in those with major depressive disorders,” the researchers wrote.

“We assessed for the first time in the same study the effect of ketamine on three a priori–defined groups of nonpsychotic patients: those with a bipolar disorder, those with a depressive disorder, and those with other diagnoses,” study investigator Fabrice Jollant, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Paris, said in an interview.

“This allowed us to find that comorbid disorders are important modulators of the clinical effects of ketamine, and that the effect of ketamine is particularly marked among patients with a bipolar disorder,” Dr. Jollant added.  

The study was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in the BMJ.
 

Swift, full remission

The study included 156 adults admitted voluntarily to seven French teaching hospitals with severe suicidal ideation, including 52 with bipolar disorder, 56 with depressive disorder, and 48 with other psychiatric diagnoses.

They were randomly allocated to two 40-minute intravenous infusions of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) administered at baseline and 24 hours, in addition to usual treatment. 

The primary outcome was the rate of patients in full suicidal remission at day 3, confirmed by a score of 3 or less on a clinician-rated scale for suicidal ideation based on 19 items scored 0-2 (maximum score, 38).

“We investigated the full remission of suicidal ideas and not only the response, which is usually defined as a reduction of 50% of scores on a given scale. If people remain slightly suicidal, the suicidal risk persists. We want all suicidal ideas to disappear,” said Dr. Jollant.

They found that more patients reached full remission of suicidal ideas at day 3 after two ketamine infusions than after placebo infusions (63% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-7.3; P < .001).

This antisuicidal effect of ketamine was rapid, with 44% remission only 2 hours after the first infusion, the authors reported.

The effect of ketamine on suicidal remission was greatest in patients with bipolar disorder, with 85% achieving full remission at day 3 (OR, 14.1; 95% CI, 3.0-92.2; P < .001), compared with 42% of patients with depressive disorder (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.3-5.2; P = .6) or 62% of those with other disorders (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 0.9-17.3; P = .07).

At 6 weeks after treatment, remission in the ketamine group remained high, although nonsignificantly versus placebo (69.5% vs. 56.3%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.5; P = .7).

The researchers noted the beneficial effect of ketamine on suicidal ideation could be mediated by an effect on psychological pain.

“Although mental pain does not necessarily lead to suicidal ideas, recent studies suggest that individuals with severe suicidal ideas (notably those with a plan) also have high levels of mental pain. Ketamine might therefore exert its effects through analgesic mechanisms that reduce mental pain,” they wrote.

Ketamine’s side effects were “limited” with no manic or psychotic symptoms seen. The main side effects, including sedation, denationalization/derealization, nausea, and dizziness, were of short duration and occurred in about 10% or fewer patients.

The investigators acknowledged that the nonsignificant effect of ketamine in the patients with major depressive disorders in this study is “challenging to interpret.”

They pointed out the study may have lacked power to detect an effect in these patients. In addition, this group might be particularly heterogeneous, with more patients sensitive to a placebo effect and more patients requiring repeated ketamine infusions.
 

A new perspective on ketamine

In an accompanying editorial, Riccardo De Giorgi, MD, Wellcome Trust doctoral training fellow, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said the study challenges current thinking about ketamine.

The “unexpected” outcome (no benefit) in the depressive group “perhaps defies the prevailing notion that patients with major depression would benefit most from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.

“In fact, both usual care and ketamine given with usual care led to low, comparable remission rates of 35.7% and 42.3% for suicidal ideation, respectively, in patients with depressive disorder,” Dr. De Giorgi pointed out.

“While this study therefore confirms that many patients with depressive disorder and suicidal ideation remain poorly served by available treatments, it shows that another important group of patients with acute suicidal ideation, those with bipolar disorder, could benefit from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.

“Once again, here is evidence that careful clinical evaluation must precede any consideration of ketamine use, which must be reserved for specific clinical presentations and not given indiscriminately to anyone presenting with suicidal thoughts,” he concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National. Dr. Jollant and Dr. De Giorgi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ketamine is a rapid and effective treatment for suicidal ideation and has a “major” moderating effect based on the primary mental health diagnosis, results of a large randomized controlled trial show.

In addition, a strong effect of ketamine was observed in patients with bipolar disorder, “whereas the effect was moderate and did not quite reach significance in those with other psychiatric disorders and unexpectedly was nonsignificant in those with major depressive disorders,” the researchers wrote.

“We assessed for the first time in the same study the effect of ketamine on three a priori–defined groups of nonpsychotic patients: those with a bipolar disorder, those with a depressive disorder, and those with other diagnoses,” study investigator Fabrice Jollant, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Paris, said in an interview.

“This allowed us to find that comorbid disorders are important modulators of the clinical effects of ketamine, and that the effect of ketamine is particularly marked among patients with a bipolar disorder,” Dr. Jollant added.  

The study was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in the BMJ.
 

Swift, full remission

The study included 156 adults admitted voluntarily to seven French teaching hospitals with severe suicidal ideation, including 52 with bipolar disorder, 56 with depressive disorder, and 48 with other psychiatric diagnoses.

They were randomly allocated to two 40-minute intravenous infusions of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) administered at baseline and 24 hours, in addition to usual treatment. 

The primary outcome was the rate of patients in full suicidal remission at day 3, confirmed by a score of 3 or less on a clinician-rated scale for suicidal ideation based on 19 items scored 0-2 (maximum score, 38).

“We investigated the full remission of suicidal ideas and not only the response, which is usually defined as a reduction of 50% of scores on a given scale. If people remain slightly suicidal, the suicidal risk persists. We want all suicidal ideas to disappear,” said Dr. Jollant.

They found that more patients reached full remission of suicidal ideas at day 3 after two ketamine infusions than after placebo infusions (63% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-7.3; P < .001).

This antisuicidal effect of ketamine was rapid, with 44% remission only 2 hours after the first infusion, the authors reported.

The effect of ketamine on suicidal remission was greatest in patients with bipolar disorder, with 85% achieving full remission at day 3 (OR, 14.1; 95% CI, 3.0-92.2; P < .001), compared with 42% of patients with depressive disorder (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.3-5.2; P = .6) or 62% of those with other disorders (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 0.9-17.3; P = .07).

At 6 weeks after treatment, remission in the ketamine group remained high, although nonsignificantly versus placebo (69.5% vs. 56.3%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.5; P = .7).

The researchers noted the beneficial effect of ketamine on suicidal ideation could be mediated by an effect on psychological pain.

“Although mental pain does not necessarily lead to suicidal ideas, recent studies suggest that individuals with severe suicidal ideas (notably those with a plan) also have high levels of mental pain. Ketamine might therefore exert its effects through analgesic mechanisms that reduce mental pain,” they wrote.

Ketamine’s side effects were “limited” with no manic or psychotic symptoms seen. The main side effects, including sedation, denationalization/derealization, nausea, and dizziness, were of short duration and occurred in about 10% or fewer patients.

The investigators acknowledged that the nonsignificant effect of ketamine in the patients with major depressive disorders in this study is “challenging to interpret.”

They pointed out the study may have lacked power to detect an effect in these patients. In addition, this group might be particularly heterogeneous, with more patients sensitive to a placebo effect and more patients requiring repeated ketamine infusions.
 

A new perspective on ketamine

In an accompanying editorial, Riccardo De Giorgi, MD, Wellcome Trust doctoral training fellow, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said the study challenges current thinking about ketamine.

The “unexpected” outcome (no benefit) in the depressive group “perhaps defies the prevailing notion that patients with major depression would benefit most from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.

“In fact, both usual care and ketamine given with usual care led to low, comparable remission rates of 35.7% and 42.3% for suicidal ideation, respectively, in patients with depressive disorder,” Dr. De Giorgi pointed out.

“While this study therefore confirms that many patients with depressive disorder and suicidal ideation remain poorly served by available treatments, it shows that another important group of patients with acute suicidal ideation, those with bipolar disorder, could benefit from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.

“Once again, here is evidence that careful clinical evaluation must precede any consideration of ketamine use, which must be reserved for specific clinical presentations and not given indiscriminately to anyone presenting with suicidal thoughts,” he concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National. Dr. Jollant and Dr. De Giorgi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ketamine is a rapid and effective treatment for suicidal ideation and has a “major” moderating effect based on the primary mental health diagnosis, results of a large randomized controlled trial show.

In addition, a strong effect of ketamine was observed in patients with bipolar disorder, “whereas the effect was moderate and did not quite reach significance in those with other psychiatric disorders and unexpectedly was nonsignificant in those with major depressive disorders,” the researchers wrote.

“We assessed for the first time in the same study the effect of ketamine on three a priori–defined groups of nonpsychotic patients: those with a bipolar disorder, those with a depressive disorder, and those with other diagnoses,” study investigator Fabrice Jollant, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Paris, said in an interview.

“This allowed us to find that comorbid disorders are important modulators of the clinical effects of ketamine, and that the effect of ketamine is particularly marked among patients with a bipolar disorder,” Dr. Jollant added.  

The study was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in the BMJ.
 

Swift, full remission

The study included 156 adults admitted voluntarily to seven French teaching hospitals with severe suicidal ideation, including 52 with bipolar disorder, 56 with depressive disorder, and 48 with other psychiatric diagnoses.

They were randomly allocated to two 40-minute intravenous infusions of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) administered at baseline and 24 hours, in addition to usual treatment. 

The primary outcome was the rate of patients in full suicidal remission at day 3, confirmed by a score of 3 or less on a clinician-rated scale for suicidal ideation based on 19 items scored 0-2 (maximum score, 38).

“We investigated the full remission of suicidal ideas and not only the response, which is usually defined as a reduction of 50% of scores on a given scale. If people remain slightly suicidal, the suicidal risk persists. We want all suicidal ideas to disappear,” said Dr. Jollant.

They found that more patients reached full remission of suicidal ideas at day 3 after two ketamine infusions than after placebo infusions (63% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-7.3; P < .001).

This antisuicidal effect of ketamine was rapid, with 44% remission only 2 hours after the first infusion, the authors reported.

The effect of ketamine on suicidal remission was greatest in patients with bipolar disorder, with 85% achieving full remission at day 3 (OR, 14.1; 95% CI, 3.0-92.2; P < .001), compared with 42% of patients with depressive disorder (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.3-5.2; P = .6) or 62% of those with other disorders (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 0.9-17.3; P = .07).

At 6 weeks after treatment, remission in the ketamine group remained high, although nonsignificantly versus placebo (69.5% vs. 56.3%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.5; P = .7).

The researchers noted the beneficial effect of ketamine on suicidal ideation could be mediated by an effect on psychological pain.

“Although mental pain does not necessarily lead to suicidal ideas, recent studies suggest that individuals with severe suicidal ideas (notably those with a plan) also have high levels of mental pain. Ketamine might therefore exert its effects through analgesic mechanisms that reduce mental pain,” they wrote.

Ketamine’s side effects were “limited” with no manic or psychotic symptoms seen. The main side effects, including sedation, denationalization/derealization, nausea, and dizziness, were of short duration and occurred in about 10% or fewer patients.

The investigators acknowledged that the nonsignificant effect of ketamine in the patients with major depressive disorders in this study is “challenging to interpret.”

They pointed out the study may have lacked power to detect an effect in these patients. In addition, this group might be particularly heterogeneous, with more patients sensitive to a placebo effect and more patients requiring repeated ketamine infusions.
 

A new perspective on ketamine

In an accompanying editorial, Riccardo De Giorgi, MD, Wellcome Trust doctoral training fellow, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said the study challenges current thinking about ketamine.

The “unexpected” outcome (no benefit) in the depressive group “perhaps defies the prevailing notion that patients with major depression would benefit most from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.

“In fact, both usual care and ketamine given with usual care led to low, comparable remission rates of 35.7% and 42.3% for suicidal ideation, respectively, in patients with depressive disorder,” Dr. De Giorgi pointed out.

“While this study therefore confirms that many patients with depressive disorder and suicidal ideation remain poorly served by available treatments, it shows that another important group of patients with acute suicidal ideation, those with bipolar disorder, could benefit from ketamine,” Dr. De Giorgi wrote.

“Once again, here is evidence that careful clinical evaluation must precede any consideration of ketamine use, which must be reserved for specific clinical presentations and not given indiscriminately to anyone presenting with suicidal thoughts,” he concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National. Dr. Jollant and Dr. De Giorgi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recent evidence has shown that women who contract COVID-19 during pregnancy are at increased risk for pregnancy loss and neonatal death. Now, an analysis of pathology data from dozens of perinatal deaths shows how.

Unlike numerous pathogens that kill the fetus by infecting it directly, SARS-CoV-2 causes “widespread and severe” destruction of the placenta that deprives the fetus of oxygen, a team of 44 researchers in 12 countries concluded after examining 64 stillbirths and four neonatal deaths in which the placentas were infected with the virus. They noted that such damage occurs in a small percentage of pregnant women with COVID and that all the women in the study had not been vaccinated against the disease.

The findings were published online Feb. 10 in the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.

Nearly all placentas had each of three features that pathologists have dubbed SARS-CoV-2 placentitis: large deposits of fibrin, a clotting protein that obstructs the flow of blood, death of cells in the trophoblast, and an unusual form of inflammation called chronic histiocytic intervillositis. Some had other abnormalities that could have exacerbated the condition.

The researchers called the extent of damage “striking,” affecting 77.7% of the placenta on average. The virus did not appear to harm fetal tissue, but placental damage “was extensive and highly destructive,” they write. Notably, none of the women in the analysis were known to have severe COVID.
 

Virus seen ‘chewing up the placenta’

David Schwartz, MD, a pathologist in Atlanta, and the lead author of the study, said COVID appears to be unique in destroying the placenta.

“I don’t know of any infection that does that to this degree or with this uniformity,” Dr. Schwartz told this news organization. “The simple message is that this infection is chewing up the placenta and destroying its capability to oxygenate the fetus.”

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that maternal COVID increases the risk of losing a pregnancy. From March 2020 to September 2021, 8,154 stillbirths were reported, affecting 0.65% of births by women without COVID and 1.26% of births by women with COVID, for a relative risk of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.15).

Delta, the variant that dominated in mid-2021, appears to have been particularly harmful. The CDC reported that the relative risk for stillbirth for mothers with COVID-19 during that period increased to 4.04 (95% CI, 3.28-4.97). Many cases in the new analysis coincided with Delta.

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues said immunization, along with antiviral therapy, might reduce the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infecting the placenta. None of the mothers in the analysis was vaccinated, and Dr. Schwartz said he is not aware of a single case in a vaccinated woman.

The analysis comes on the heels of a study from the National Institutes of Health linking severe to moderate COVID infection to greater risk of other pregnancy complications: cesarean and preterm delivery, death during childbirth, postpartum hemorrhaging, and non-COVID infections.

Diana Bianchi, MD, director of NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said those findings underscore the need for pregnant women to be vaccinated. (The shots have been shown to be safe for pregnant women.)

Denise Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new analysis, said the findings may have important clinical implications. In addition to ensuring that pregnant patients are fully vaccinated, she said “there may be opportunities to more closely monitor the placenta during pregnancy using imaging modalities such as ultrasound.”

Even in the presence of severe abnormalities, a fetus that has reached a viable gestational age could potentially be delivered prior to stillbirth, Dr. Jamieson said. The 64 stillbirths in the analysis ranged from 15 to 39.2 weeks of gestation, with an average of 30 weeks. Eight were delivered at full term.

However, additional studies are needed to support monitoring of placental changes, she said: “It is not ready for prime time now.”

Christopher Zahn, MD, vice president of practice activities the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, cautioned that data on COVID and pregnancy complications remain limited.

The findings in this analysis “do not prove the association between COVID-19 infection and neonatal outcomes,” Dr. Zahn said. “While stillbirth could potentially be another adverse outcome for pregnant people who contract COVID-19, currently we don’t have enough data to confirm that a COVID-19 infection at any point in pregnancy indicates increased risk of stillbirth.”

He added that ACOG continues to strongly recommend vaccination against COVID for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, or planning to be pregnant.

Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Jamieson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author reported receiving financial support from the Slovak Research and Development Agency. Another reported funding from the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research and the Fetus for Life charity.

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

Recent evidence has shown that women who contract COVID-19 during pregnancy are at increased risk for pregnancy loss and neonatal death. Now, an analysis of pathology data from dozens of perinatal deaths shows how.

Unlike numerous pathogens that kill the fetus by infecting it directly, SARS-CoV-2 causes “widespread and severe” destruction of the placenta that deprives the fetus of oxygen, a team of 44 researchers in 12 countries concluded after examining 64 stillbirths and four neonatal deaths in which the placentas were infected with the virus. They noted that such damage occurs in a small percentage of pregnant women with COVID and that all the women in the study had not been vaccinated against the disease.

The findings were published online Feb. 10 in the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.

Nearly all placentas had each of three features that pathologists have dubbed SARS-CoV-2 placentitis: large deposits of fibrin, a clotting protein that obstructs the flow of blood, death of cells in the trophoblast, and an unusual form of inflammation called chronic histiocytic intervillositis. Some had other abnormalities that could have exacerbated the condition.

The researchers called the extent of damage “striking,” affecting 77.7% of the placenta on average. The virus did not appear to harm fetal tissue, but placental damage “was extensive and highly destructive,” they write. Notably, none of the women in the analysis were known to have severe COVID.
 

Virus seen ‘chewing up the placenta’

David Schwartz, MD, a pathologist in Atlanta, and the lead author of the study, said COVID appears to be unique in destroying the placenta.

“I don’t know of any infection that does that to this degree or with this uniformity,” Dr. Schwartz told this news organization. “The simple message is that this infection is chewing up the placenta and destroying its capability to oxygenate the fetus.”

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that maternal COVID increases the risk of losing a pregnancy. From March 2020 to September 2021, 8,154 stillbirths were reported, affecting 0.65% of births by women without COVID and 1.26% of births by women with COVID, for a relative risk of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.15).

Delta, the variant that dominated in mid-2021, appears to have been particularly harmful. The CDC reported that the relative risk for stillbirth for mothers with COVID-19 during that period increased to 4.04 (95% CI, 3.28-4.97). Many cases in the new analysis coincided with Delta.

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues said immunization, along with antiviral therapy, might reduce the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infecting the placenta. None of the mothers in the analysis was vaccinated, and Dr. Schwartz said he is not aware of a single case in a vaccinated woman.

The analysis comes on the heels of a study from the National Institutes of Health linking severe to moderate COVID infection to greater risk of other pregnancy complications: cesarean and preterm delivery, death during childbirth, postpartum hemorrhaging, and non-COVID infections.

Diana Bianchi, MD, director of NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said those findings underscore the need for pregnant women to be vaccinated. (The shots have been shown to be safe for pregnant women.)

Denise Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new analysis, said the findings may have important clinical implications. In addition to ensuring that pregnant patients are fully vaccinated, she said “there may be opportunities to more closely monitor the placenta during pregnancy using imaging modalities such as ultrasound.”

Even in the presence of severe abnormalities, a fetus that has reached a viable gestational age could potentially be delivered prior to stillbirth, Dr. Jamieson said. The 64 stillbirths in the analysis ranged from 15 to 39.2 weeks of gestation, with an average of 30 weeks. Eight were delivered at full term.

However, additional studies are needed to support monitoring of placental changes, she said: “It is not ready for prime time now.”

Christopher Zahn, MD, vice president of practice activities the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, cautioned that data on COVID and pregnancy complications remain limited.

The findings in this analysis “do not prove the association between COVID-19 infection and neonatal outcomes,” Dr. Zahn said. “While stillbirth could potentially be another adverse outcome for pregnant people who contract COVID-19, currently we don’t have enough data to confirm that a COVID-19 infection at any point in pregnancy indicates increased risk of stillbirth.”

He added that ACOG continues to strongly recommend vaccination against COVID for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, or planning to be pregnant.

Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Jamieson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author reported receiving financial support from the Slovak Research and Development Agency. Another reported funding from the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research and the Fetus for Life charity.

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

Recent evidence has shown that women who contract COVID-19 during pregnancy are at increased risk for pregnancy loss and neonatal death. Now, an analysis of pathology data from dozens of perinatal deaths shows how.

Unlike numerous pathogens that kill the fetus by infecting it directly, SARS-CoV-2 causes “widespread and severe” destruction of the placenta that deprives the fetus of oxygen, a team of 44 researchers in 12 countries concluded after examining 64 stillbirths and four neonatal deaths in which the placentas were infected with the virus. They noted that such damage occurs in a small percentage of pregnant women with COVID and that all the women in the study had not been vaccinated against the disease.

The findings were published online Feb. 10 in the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.

Nearly all placentas had each of three features that pathologists have dubbed SARS-CoV-2 placentitis: large deposits of fibrin, a clotting protein that obstructs the flow of blood, death of cells in the trophoblast, and an unusual form of inflammation called chronic histiocytic intervillositis. Some had other abnormalities that could have exacerbated the condition.

The researchers called the extent of damage “striking,” affecting 77.7% of the placenta on average. The virus did not appear to harm fetal tissue, but placental damage “was extensive and highly destructive,” they write. Notably, none of the women in the analysis were known to have severe COVID.
 

Virus seen ‘chewing up the placenta’

David Schwartz, MD, a pathologist in Atlanta, and the lead author of the study, said COVID appears to be unique in destroying the placenta.

“I don’t know of any infection that does that to this degree or with this uniformity,” Dr. Schwartz told this news organization. “The simple message is that this infection is chewing up the placenta and destroying its capability to oxygenate the fetus.”

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that maternal COVID increases the risk of losing a pregnancy. From March 2020 to September 2021, 8,154 stillbirths were reported, affecting 0.65% of births by women without COVID and 1.26% of births by women with COVID, for a relative risk of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.15).

Delta, the variant that dominated in mid-2021, appears to have been particularly harmful. The CDC reported that the relative risk for stillbirth for mothers with COVID-19 during that period increased to 4.04 (95% CI, 3.28-4.97). Many cases in the new analysis coincided with Delta.

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues said immunization, along with antiviral therapy, might reduce the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infecting the placenta. None of the mothers in the analysis was vaccinated, and Dr. Schwartz said he is not aware of a single case in a vaccinated woman.

The analysis comes on the heels of a study from the National Institutes of Health linking severe to moderate COVID infection to greater risk of other pregnancy complications: cesarean and preterm delivery, death during childbirth, postpartum hemorrhaging, and non-COVID infections.

Diana Bianchi, MD, director of NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said those findings underscore the need for pregnant women to be vaccinated. (The shots have been shown to be safe for pregnant women.)

Denise Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new analysis, said the findings may have important clinical implications. In addition to ensuring that pregnant patients are fully vaccinated, she said “there may be opportunities to more closely monitor the placenta during pregnancy using imaging modalities such as ultrasound.”

Even in the presence of severe abnormalities, a fetus that has reached a viable gestational age could potentially be delivered prior to stillbirth, Dr. Jamieson said. The 64 stillbirths in the analysis ranged from 15 to 39.2 weeks of gestation, with an average of 30 weeks. Eight were delivered at full term.

However, additional studies are needed to support monitoring of placental changes, she said: “It is not ready for prime time now.”

Christopher Zahn, MD, vice president of practice activities the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, cautioned that data on COVID and pregnancy complications remain limited.

The findings in this analysis “do not prove the association between COVID-19 infection and neonatal outcomes,” Dr. Zahn said. “While stillbirth could potentially be another adverse outcome for pregnant people who contract COVID-19, currently we don’t have enough data to confirm that a COVID-19 infection at any point in pregnancy indicates increased risk of stillbirth.”

He added that ACOG continues to strongly recommend vaccination against COVID for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, or planning to be pregnant.

Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Jamieson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author reported receiving financial support from the Slovak Research and Development Agency. Another reported funding from the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research and the Fetus for Life charity.

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

Most adults in the United States who have chronic pain favor a combination of nondrug and nonopioid approaches to control their pain, which is “encouraging,” new research shows.

A national survey reveals 55% of adults with chronic pain used pain management techniques that did not involve any opioids at all during the prior 3-month period.

However, few participants took advantage of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is effective for easing chronic pain, Cornelius Groenewald, MB ChB, department of anesthesiology and pain medicine, University of Seattle, and colleagues write.

The results were published online in a research letter Feb. 7 in JAMA Network Open.

First time for pain questions

An estimated 50.2 million U.S. adults experience chronic pain, according to the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

The 2019 version of the survey included questions on pain management techniques for the first time. Adults with chronic pain were asked to report on their use of 11 pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Among the 31,916 survey respondents, 64% were women; 69% were non-Hispanic White, 13% were Hispanic, and 11% were non-Hispanic Black; 71% were between 18 and 64 years of age, and 29% were 65 and older.

Among the key findings, an estimated 55% of adults with chronic pain used only nonopioid pain management techniques, 11% used both opioids and nonopioid techniques, and 4% used only opioids for chronic pain management; 30% did not report any pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Complementary therapies were the most commonly used nonopioid pain management technique (by 35% of adults with chronic pain), followed by physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapies (19%).

Only about 4% of adults with chronic pain used CBT.

Other techniques used included self-management programs (5%) and chronic pain peer support groups (2%). In addition, 39% of adults with chronic pain reported using other pain approaches not specifically captured in the data set.

Benchmark data

Participants using complementary and psychological or psychotherapeutic interventions were more likely to be younger women with more education, the investigators report.

Adults using physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapy were more likely to be highly educated older women with medical insurance.

Prescription opioid use for chronic pain was more common among older adults aged 45-64 years vs. those aged 18-44 years (19% vs. 8%).

It was also more common in women than men (17% vs. 13%), in adults with vs. without health insurance (16% vs. 6%), and in those with a high school education or lower, compared with those had more than a high school education (17% vs. 14%).

Prescription opioid use was less common among adults making $100,000 or more annually than in those making less than $35,000 a year (9% vs. 20%).

“While effective for some, opioids prescribed for chronic pain management remain an important determinant of the national opioid crisis,” the investigators write.

The study “provides baseline information on opioid and nonopioid pain management techniques used for chronic pain and serves as a benchmark for evaluating the outcome of health care policies aimed at reducing prescription opioid use,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most adults in the United States who have chronic pain favor a combination of nondrug and nonopioid approaches to control their pain, which is “encouraging,” new research shows.

A national survey reveals 55% of adults with chronic pain used pain management techniques that did not involve any opioids at all during the prior 3-month period.

However, few participants took advantage of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is effective for easing chronic pain, Cornelius Groenewald, MB ChB, department of anesthesiology and pain medicine, University of Seattle, and colleagues write.

The results were published online in a research letter Feb. 7 in JAMA Network Open.

First time for pain questions

An estimated 50.2 million U.S. adults experience chronic pain, according to the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

The 2019 version of the survey included questions on pain management techniques for the first time. Adults with chronic pain were asked to report on their use of 11 pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Among the 31,916 survey respondents, 64% were women; 69% were non-Hispanic White, 13% were Hispanic, and 11% were non-Hispanic Black; 71% were between 18 and 64 years of age, and 29% were 65 and older.

Among the key findings, an estimated 55% of adults with chronic pain used only nonopioid pain management techniques, 11% used both opioids and nonopioid techniques, and 4% used only opioids for chronic pain management; 30% did not report any pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Complementary therapies were the most commonly used nonopioid pain management technique (by 35% of adults with chronic pain), followed by physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapies (19%).

Only about 4% of adults with chronic pain used CBT.

Other techniques used included self-management programs (5%) and chronic pain peer support groups (2%). In addition, 39% of adults with chronic pain reported using other pain approaches not specifically captured in the data set.

Benchmark data

Participants using complementary and psychological or psychotherapeutic interventions were more likely to be younger women with more education, the investigators report.

Adults using physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapy were more likely to be highly educated older women with medical insurance.

Prescription opioid use for chronic pain was more common among older adults aged 45-64 years vs. those aged 18-44 years (19% vs. 8%).

It was also more common in women than men (17% vs. 13%), in adults with vs. without health insurance (16% vs. 6%), and in those with a high school education or lower, compared with those had more than a high school education (17% vs. 14%).

Prescription opioid use was less common among adults making $100,000 or more annually than in those making less than $35,000 a year (9% vs. 20%).

“While effective for some, opioids prescribed for chronic pain management remain an important determinant of the national opioid crisis,” the investigators write.

The study “provides baseline information on opioid and nonopioid pain management techniques used for chronic pain and serves as a benchmark for evaluating the outcome of health care policies aimed at reducing prescription opioid use,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most adults in the United States who have chronic pain favor a combination of nondrug and nonopioid approaches to control their pain, which is “encouraging,” new research shows.

A national survey reveals 55% of adults with chronic pain used pain management techniques that did not involve any opioids at all during the prior 3-month period.

However, few participants took advantage of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is effective for easing chronic pain, Cornelius Groenewald, MB ChB, department of anesthesiology and pain medicine, University of Seattle, and colleagues write.

The results were published online in a research letter Feb. 7 in JAMA Network Open.

First time for pain questions

An estimated 50.2 million U.S. adults experience chronic pain, according to the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

The 2019 version of the survey included questions on pain management techniques for the first time. Adults with chronic pain were asked to report on their use of 11 pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Among the 31,916 survey respondents, 64% were women; 69% were non-Hispanic White, 13% were Hispanic, and 11% were non-Hispanic Black; 71% were between 18 and 64 years of age, and 29% were 65 and older.

Among the key findings, an estimated 55% of adults with chronic pain used only nonopioid pain management techniques, 11% used both opioids and nonopioid techniques, and 4% used only opioids for chronic pain management; 30% did not report any pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Complementary therapies were the most commonly used nonopioid pain management technique (by 35% of adults with chronic pain), followed by physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapies (19%).

Only about 4% of adults with chronic pain used CBT.

Other techniques used included self-management programs (5%) and chronic pain peer support groups (2%). In addition, 39% of adults with chronic pain reported using other pain approaches not specifically captured in the data set.

Benchmark data

Participants using complementary and psychological or psychotherapeutic interventions were more likely to be younger women with more education, the investigators report.

Adults using physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapy were more likely to be highly educated older women with medical insurance.

Prescription opioid use for chronic pain was more common among older adults aged 45-64 years vs. those aged 18-44 years (19% vs. 8%).

It was also more common in women than men (17% vs. 13%), in adults with vs. without health insurance (16% vs. 6%), and in those with a high school education or lower, compared with those had more than a high school education (17% vs. 14%).

Prescription opioid use was less common among adults making $100,000 or more annually than in those making less than $35,000 a year (9% vs. 20%).

“While effective for some, opioids prescribed for chronic pain management remain an important determinant of the national opioid crisis,” the investigators write.

The study “provides baseline information on opioid and nonopioid pain management techniques used for chronic pain and serves as a benchmark for evaluating the outcome of health care policies aimed at reducing prescription opioid use,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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