Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

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

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

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

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

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

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Without bold and urgent action, including public health policy reform and stricter corporate regulations, an additional 1.2 million people in North America will die of an opioid overdose by 2029, according to an analysis by the Stanford-Lancet Commission.

“Over the past quarter-century, the opioid epidemic has taken nearly 600,000 lives and triggered a cascade of public health catastrophes such as disability, family breakdown, unemployment, and child neglect in North America,” commission chair Keith Humphreys, PhD, said in a news release.

“If no action is taken, by the end of this decade, we are predicting the number of deaths to be twice as high as it has been over the last 20 years,” said Dr. Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The report was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in The Lancet.
 

Blame it on COVID-19?

The COVID-19 pandemic has both overshadowed and exacerbated the opioid crisis in North America, the commission pointed out in their report.

Their analysis suggests that 2020 was the worst year on record for overdose deaths in the United States and Canada in terms of both the total number of deaths and percentage annual increase.

In the United States, opioid overdose deaths increased by 37%, from 51,133 in 2019 to 70,168 in 2020, bringing the total number of deaths since 1999 to 583,000.

In Canada, opioid overdose deaths jumped by 72%, from 3,668 in 2019 to 6,306 in 2020, with a further 3,515 deaths reported in the first 6 months of 2021.

Although the 2020 spikes might be partly caused by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a rising trajectory of deaths was evident in both the United States and Canada before the pandemic hit, the Stanford-Lancet Commission said.
 

Profit motives, lack of regulation

The commission blames the opioid epidemic on a lack of adequate regulation and oversight coupled with profit motives of the pharmaceutical and health care industry.

Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health

“To ensure safeguards are in place to curb the opioid addiction epidemic and prevent future ones involving other addictive drugs, we must end the pharmaceutical and health care industry’s undue influence on the government and its unregulated push for opioid use,” commission member Howard Koh, MD, MPH, said in the news release.

“This includes insulating the medical community from pharmaceutical company influence and closing the constantly revolving door between regulators and industry,” said Dr. Koh, with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

In addition to regulation and policy reform, the commission said prevention efforts that focus on treating addiction as a chronic condition are key.

The United States in particular lacks accessible, high-quality, nonstigmatizing, and integrated health and social care services for people experiencing opioid use disorder, the Commission notes.

Addiction-related services must become a permanent feature of health and social care systems in the United States and Canada, in line with established chronic disease management models that are financed and organized as a core public health commitment, the commission said.

“Addiction is an enduring part of population health and should not be treated as a moral failing that needs punishment but as a chronic health condition that requires ongoing treatment and long-term support,” commission member Yasmin Hurd, PhD, director of the Addiction Institute at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in the release.

Investing in young people to reduce the risk of addiction will also be important going forward.

“Preventing drug addiction should be part of a comprehensive public health strategy that starts in childhood and lays the foundation for long-term declines in addiction,” said commission member Chelsea Shover, PhD, with the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

‘Audacious but achievable goal’

The commission calls for a nuanced approach to pain management that prioritizes innovation both in society’s response to drug addiction through policy reform and by supporting the development of new, nonaddictive pain management options.

“Opioids should not be viewed as good or bad, but instead as a class of medications essential to the management of pain. However, opioids also come with serious risks, some of which can be difficult to recognize,” commission member David Juurlink, MD, PhD, said in the release.

“Clinicians should begin learning about responsible pain management prescribing in medical school and continue to learn about it as part of their commitment to continued medical education throughout their careers,” said Dr. Juurlink, with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

Humphreys said ending the opioid epidemic in North America and preventing its global spread is “an audacious but achievable goal” that will require a “dramatic shift in policy and culture where innovation, collaboration, and regulation are encouraged.

“We can save and improve lives by summoning the resources and political will necessary to eliminate the sources of addiction and boldly implement policies that will maximize efforts to treat it,” Dr. Humphreys added.

The study was funded by Stanford University.

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

Without bold and urgent action, including public health policy reform and stricter corporate regulations, an additional 1.2 million people in North America will die of an opioid overdose by 2029, according to an analysis by the Stanford-Lancet Commission.

“Over the past quarter-century, the opioid epidemic has taken nearly 600,000 lives and triggered a cascade of public health catastrophes such as disability, family breakdown, unemployment, and child neglect in North America,” commission chair Keith Humphreys, PhD, said in a news release.

“If no action is taken, by the end of this decade, we are predicting the number of deaths to be twice as high as it has been over the last 20 years,” said Dr. Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The report was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in The Lancet.
 

Blame it on COVID-19?

The COVID-19 pandemic has both overshadowed and exacerbated the opioid crisis in North America, the commission pointed out in their report.

Their analysis suggests that 2020 was the worst year on record for overdose deaths in the United States and Canada in terms of both the total number of deaths and percentage annual increase.

In the United States, opioid overdose deaths increased by 37%, from 51,133 in 2019 to 70,168 in 2020, bringing the total number of deaths since 1999 to 583,000.

In Canada, opioid overdose deaths jumped by 72%, from 3,668 in 2019 to 6,306 in 2020, with a further 3,515 deaths reported in the first 6 months of 2021.

Although the 2020 spikes might be partly caused by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a rising trajectory of deaths was evident in both the United States and Canada before the pandemic hit, the Stanford-Lancet Commission said.
 

Profit motives, lack of regulation

The commission blames the opioid epidemic on a lack of adequate regulation and oversight coupled with profit motives of the pharmaceutical and health care industry.

Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health

“To ensure safeguards are in place to curb the opioid addiction epidemic and prevent future ones involving other addictive drugs, we must end the pharmaceutical and health care industry’s undue influence on the government and its unregulated push for opioid use,” commission member Howard Koh, MD, MPH, said in the news release.

“This includes insulating the medical community from pharmaceutical company influence and closing the constantly revolving door between regulators and industry,” said Dr. Koh, with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

In addition to regulation and policy reform, the commission said prevention efforts that focus on treating addiction as a chronic condition are key.

The United States in particular lacks accessible, high-quality, nonstigmatizing, and integrated health and social care services for people experiencing opioid use disorder, the Commission notes.

Addiction-related services must become a permanent feature of health and social care systems in the United States and Canada, in line with established chronic disease management models that are financed and organized as a core public health commitment, the commission said.

“Addiction is an enduring part of population health and should not be treated as a moral failing that needs punishment but as a chronic health condition that requires ongoing treatment and long-term support,” commission member Yasmin Hurd, PhD, director of the Addiction Institute at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in the release.

Investing in young people to reduce the risk of addiction will also be important going forward.

“Preventing drug addiction should be part of a comprehensive public health strategy that starts in childhood and lays the foundation for long-term declines in addiction,” said commission member Chelsea Shover, PhD, with the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

‘Audacious but achievable goal’

The commission calls for a nuanced approach to pain management that prioritizes innovation both in society’s response to drug addiction through policy reform and by supporting the development of new, nonaddictive pain management options.

“Opioids should not be viewed as good or bad, but instead as a class of medications essential to the management of pain. However, opioids also come with serious risks, some of which can be difficult to recognize,” commission member David Juurlink, MD, PhD, said in the release.

“Clinicians should begin learning about responsible pain management prescribing in medical school and continue to learn about it as part of their commitment to continued medical education throughout their careers,” said Dr. Juurlink, with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

Humphreys said ending the opioid epidemic in North America and preventing its global spread is “an audacious but achievable goal” that will require a “dramatic shift in policy and culture where innovation, collaboration, and regulation are encouraged.

“We can save and improve lives by summoning the resources and political will necessary to eliminate the sources of addiction and boldly implement policies that will maximize efforts to treat it,” Dr. Humphreys added.

The study was funded by Stanford University.

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

Without bold and urgent action, including public health policy reform and stricter corporate regulations, an additional 1.2 million people in North America will die of an opioid overdose by 2029, according to an analysis by the Stanford-Lancet Commission.

“Over the past quarter-century, the opioid epidemic has taken nearly 600,000 lives and triggered a cascade of public health catastrophes such as disability, family breakdown, unemployment, and child neglect in North America,” commission chair Keith Humphreys, PhD, said in a news release.

“If no action is taken, by the end of this decade, we are predicting the number of deaths to be twice as high as it has been over the last 20 years,” said Dr. Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The report was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in The Lancet.
 

Blame it on COVID-19?

The COVID-19 pandemic has both overshadowed and exacerbated the opioid crisis in North America, the commission pointed out in their report.

Their analysis suggests that 2020 was the worst year on record for overdose deaths in the United States and Canada in terms of both the total number of deaths and percentage annual increase.

In the United States, opioid overdose deaths increased by 37%, from 51,133 in 2019 to 70,168 in 2020, bringing the total number of deaths since 1999 to 583,000.

In Canada, opioid overdose deaths jumped by 72%, from 3,668 in 2019 to 6,306 in 2020, with a further 3,515 deaths reported in the first 6 months of 2021.

Although the 2020 spikes might be partly caused by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a rising trajectory of deaths was evident in both the United States and Canada before the pandemic hit, the Stanford-Lancet Commission said.
 

Profit motives, lack of regulation

The commission blames the opioid epidemic on a lack of adequate regulation and oversight coupled with profit motives of the pharmaceutical and health care industry.

Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health

“To ensure safeguards are in place to curb the opioid addiction epidemic and prevent future ones involving other addictive drugs, we must end the pharmaceutical and health care industry’s undue influence on the government and its unregulated push for opioid use,” commission member Howard Koh, MD, MPH, said in the news release.

“This includes insulating the medical community from pharmaceutical company influence and closing the constantly revolving door between regulators and industry,” said Dr. Koh, with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

In addition to regulation and policy reform, the commission said prevention efforts that focus on treating addiction as a chronic condition are key.

The United States in particular lacks accessible, high-quality, nonstigmatizing, and integrated health and social care services for people experiencing opioid use disorder, the Commission notes.

Addiction-related services must become a permanent feature of health and social care systems in the United States and Canada, in line with established chronic disease management models that are financed and organized as a core public health commitment, the commission said.

“Addiction is an enduring part of population health and should not be treated as a moral failing that needs punishment but as a chronic health condition that requires ongoing treatment and long-term support,” commission member Yasmin Hurd, PhD, director of the Addiction Institute at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in the release.

Investing in young people to reduce the risk of addiction will also be important going forward.

“Preventing drug addiction should be part of a comprehensive public health strategy that starts in childhood and lays the foundation for long-term declines in addiction,” said commission member Chelsea Shover, PhD, with the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

‘Audacious but achievable goal’

The commission calls for a nuanced approach to pain management that prioritizes innovation both in society’s response to drug addiction through policy reform and by supporting the development of new, nonaddictive pain management options.

“Opioids should not be viewed as good or bad, but instead as a class of medications essential to the management of pain. However, opioids also come with serious risks, some of which can be difficult to recognize,” commission member David Juurlink, MD, PhD, said in the release.

“Clinicians should begin learning about responsible pain management prescribing in medical school and continue to learn about it as part of their commitment to continued medical education throughout their careers,” said Dr. Juurlink, with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

Humphreys said ending the opioid epidemic in North America and preventing its global spread is “an audacious but achievable goal” that will require a “dramatic shift in policy and culture where innovation, collaboration, and regulation are encouraged.

“We can save and improve lives by summoning the resources and political will necessary to eliminate the sources of addiction and boldly implement policies that will maximize efforts to treat it,” Dr. Humphreys added.

The study was funded by Stanford University.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Use of e-cigarettes was not more effective than other methods at helping cigarette smokers quit, authors of new research found.

From 2013 to 2017, e-cigarette sales in the United States nearly doubled, driven by a rapid uptake of use by adolescents, wrote Riufeng Chen, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues, in their paper published in Tobacco Control. However, the subsequent effect of increased e-cigarette use on smoking cessation have not been examined, they said.

In their study, Dr. Chen and colleagues analyzed data from 3,578 previous-year smokers with a recent quit attempt and 1,323 recent former smokers who were part of the PATH cohort in 2017. The participants reported using e-cigarettes or other products to quit cigarette smoking. The primary outcomes were at least 12 months of cigarette abstinence, and tobacco abstinence in 2019. In 2017, 32.8% of established smokers reported trying to quit. Of these, 12.6% used e-cigarettes to help them quit. Cigarette abstinence for at least 12 months for these individuals was 9.9%, which was lower than for those who used either nicotine replacement therapy or a pharmaceutical aid only (15.2%), and about half of the 18.6% abstinence in those who used no products to help them quit.

“In our study, e-cigarettes resulted in seven fewer successful quitters than those who used pharmaceutical aids,” emphasized corresponding author, John P. Pierce, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Among smokers attempting to quit, the adjusted risk difference for cigarette abstinence for a least 12 months with e-cigarettes vs. pharmaceutical aids was –7.3%, and –7.7% for e-cigarettes vs. other smoking cessation methods.

*“Among recent former smokers who had switched to daily use of e-cigarettes in 2017, 43.2% had successfully quit cigarette smoking by 2019, which was similar to those who used e-cigarettes on a nondaily basis (34.6%) or to those who switched to another tobacco product, whether daily (43.6%) or nondaily (44.7%),” the researchers wrote.

The rapid growth in e-cigarette use between 2014 and 2017 has been attributed in part to aggressive marketing of high-nicotine e-cigarettes, they said. “The high-nicotine JUUL e-cigarette has been noted as the closest match to cigarettes in both nicotine delivery and user satisfaction, which should make it one of the best candidates as a product to which smokers could switch in order to maintain their nicotine habit,” they said in their discussion of the findings.

More research needed

The researchers acknowledged the need to review more recent data.

“When we looked ahead to 2019, recent former smokers had started using high-nicotine e-cigarettes. The effectiveness of high-nicotine e-cigarettes at preventing relapse will require another follow-up PATH survey,” they said.

Among recent former smokers, 2.2% reported switching to a high-nicotine e-cigarette. Although individuals who switched to e-cigarettes showed a higher rate of relapse to cigarettes than those who did not switch to other tobacco or e-cigarette products, this difference was not significant.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and inability to control for all potential confounding factors, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large and representative study population, and the inclusion of biological samples to validate self-reported smoking, they said.
 

Several findings surprised study author

Dr. Pierce said he was surprised by several aspects of the study findings.

“First of all, contrary to what we expected, there was a 25% decline in using e-cigarettes to quit, compared to the previous year (not the 40% increase that was expected from the increase in e-cigarette sales) and almost no smokers were using high-nicotine JUUL products to help them quit,” he said. “In this study, e-cigarettes were much less helpful (7 less successful quitters per 100) than pharmaceutical cessation aids in helping people quit,” he added.

“The fact that the proportion of smokers using e-cigarettes for cessation dropped from 17% to 12% was unexpected, and it suggests that the belief that they are a cessation aid is declining,” he said.

The implication for clinical practice is that e-cigarettes are not a useful tool for smoking cessation, Dr. Pierce said. “We are not finding any evidence in this very large nationally representative study that smokers who switch to getting their nicotine from e-cigarettes are less likely to relapse back to cigarette smoking,” he said.

“We don’t know about the high-nicotine versions,” he added. 
 

New review advises against e-cigarettes for cessation

A recent review article published in JAMA supported the use of pharmacotherapy and behavioral support for smokers wanting to quit. In the review, Nancy A. Rigotti, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues summarized the evidence for managing tobacco smoking in clinical practice.

“The health risk from cigarette smoking is primarily due to chemicals produced by the burning of tobacco and not to nicotine,” they noted. However, the physical dependence on nicotine makes quitting a challenge, but it is one worth pursuing, the authors said.

The authors of this review identified 30 reviews, 12 randomized clinical trials, and 7 recent guidelines and evidence reviews. Their key message: Pharmacotherapy and behavioral support are effective when used alone, but even more effective when combined. Pharmacotherapy helps reduce the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, while behavioral intervention tackles the challenge of changing learned behaviors associated with smoking, the researchers said.

Although combining medications, such as varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy or bupropion might improve successful quit rates, these combinations have not been well studied, they noted.

With regard to e-cigarettes, the researchers cited a 2021 Cochrane review of 16,759 individuals who used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, which found no evidence of harm, but insufficient evidence to asses the balance of risks vs. benefits.

In addition to the lack of randomized trials, “the FDA regulates e-cigarettes as tobacco products, not as medical products and has not evaluated any e-cigarette for medical use as a cessation aid,” the authors of the new review noted.

The review was limited by several factors, including the lack of quality assessment for the selected studies and the exclusion of pharmacotherapy not licensed in the United States.

Commenting on the JAMA paper, Dr. Pierce said, “This review looks like a number of Cochrane Reports that have been published recently. Of course, it only considers randomized trials and not population evidence.”

“If public health had limited itself to this form of evidence, then we still would not know that smoking caused cancer,” he noted. “Randomized trials are very important for testing new drugs; they use selected populations and provide considerable support that is not available in the real world. Sometimes they do not generalize to the population.”
 

Findings may guide patient conversations

The Tobacco Control study was important, because few studies on e-cigarettes have been conducted, said Linda Girgis, MD, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., in an interview.

“As clinicians, we do not have a lot of data available in order to make clinical decisions that are evidence based. Also, getting patients to quit smoking is often very difficult, and having more tools available is a great benefit; however, we need to have the evidence that these tools are effective,” she said.

Dr. Girgis also said she was not surprised by the findings.

“Patients still have the same concerns from e-cigarettes regarding nicotine exposure, but just to a lesser degree; and we still don’t know the long-term effects of e-cigarette use, she said. Based on these studies, recommending e-cigarettes for smokers looking to quit may not be the best method, she noted.

“While it may seem reasonable that exposing lungs to lower doses of nicotine will reduce harm, we need to see actual evidence of this. Also, we also need to study the additives that are frequently used in e-cigs, such as artificial flavorings, to see what harms they may pose, she emphasized.

With regard to the JAMA review, Dr. Girgis said she agreed with the recommendations for pharmacotherapy and behavior therapy as first-line treatments for smoking cessation. “There is evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these methods, and they have been used for decades,” she said.

Dr. Girgis added that there is a role for e-cigarettes in smoking cessation strategies as a method of harm reduction, but pointed out the problem of many people thinking these products are safe and not understanding the hazards they pose.

“They think they can replace smoking with e-cigarettes and be safe from the health risks associated with smoking. I think if the plan were to switch to e-cigarettes for a short period and then quit, there would be a role,” Dr. Girgis said. “However, replacing one risk for another may reduce harm, but doesn’t eliminate it.”

“To continue to use e-cigarettes indefinitely should not be the goal,” she added.

The Tobacco Control study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of the University of California. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The JAMA study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funds to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group. Lead author Dr. Rigotti disclosed funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Achieve Life Sciences and personal fees from UpToDate and Achieve Life Sciences. Dr. Girgis had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 2/28/2022.

Use of e-cigarettes was not more effective than other methods at helping cigarette smokers quit, authors of new research found.

From 2013 to 2017, e-cigarette sales in the United States nearly doubled, driven by a rapid uptake of use by adolescents, wrote Riufeng Chen, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues, in their paper published in Tobacco Control. However, the subsequent effect of increased e-cigarette use on smoking cessation have not been examined, they said.

In their study, Dr. Chen and colleagues analyzed data from 3,578 previous-year smokers with a recent quit attempt and 1,323 recent former smokers who were part of the PATH cohort in 2017. The participants reported using e-cigarettes or other products to quit cigarette smoking. The primary outcomes were at least 12 months of cigarette abstinence, and tobacco abstinence in 2019. In 2017, 32.8% of established smokers reported trying to quit. Of these, 12.6% used e-cigarettes to help them quit. Cigarette abstinence for at least 12 months for these individuals was 9.9%, which was lower than for those who used either nicotine replacement therapy or a pharmaceutical aid only (15.2%), and about half of the 18.6% abstinence in those who used no products to help them quit.

“In our study, e-cigarettes resulted in seven fewer successful quitters than those who used pharmaceutical aids,” emphasized corresponding author, John P. Pierce, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Among smokers attempting to quit, the adjusted risk difference for cigarette abstinence for a least 12 months with e-cigarettes vs. pharmaceutical aids was –7.3%, and –7.7% for e-cigarettes vs. other smoking cessation methods.

*“Among recent former smokers who had switched to daily use of e-cigarettes in 2017, 43.2% had successfully quit cigarette smoking by 2019, which was similar to those who used e-cigarettes on a nondaily basis (34.6%) or to those who switched to another tobacco product, whether daily (43.6%) or nondaily (44.7%),” the researchers wrote.

The rapid growth in e-cigarette use between 2014 and 2017 has been attributed in part to aggressive marketing of high-nicotine e-cigarettes, they said. “The high-nicotine JUUL e-cigarette has been noted as the closest match to cigarettes in both nicotine delivery and user satisfaction, which should make it one of the best candidates as a product to which smokers could switch in order to maintain their nicotine habit,” they said in their discussion of the findings.

More research needed

The researchers acknowledged the need to review more recent data.

“When we looked ahead to 2019, recent former smokers had started using high-nicotine e-cigarettes. The effectiveness of high-nicotine e-cigarettes at preventing relapse will require another follow-up PATH survey,” they said.

Among recent former smokers, 2.2% reported switching to a high-nicotine e-cigarette. Although individuals who switched to e-cigarettes showed a higher rate of relapse to cigarettes than those who did not switch to other tobacco or e-cigarette products, this difference was not significant.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and inability to control for all potential confounding factors, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large and representative study population, and the inclusion of biological samples to validate self-reported smoking, they said.
 

Several findings surprised study author

Dr. Pierce said he was surprised by several aspects of the study findings.

“First of all, contrary to what we expected, there was a 25% decline in using e-cigarettes to quit, compared to the previous year (not the 40% increase that was expected from the increase in e-cigarette sales) and almost no smokers were using high-nicotine JUUL products to help them quit,” he said. “In this study, e-cigarettes were much less helpful (7 less successful quitters per 100) than pharmaceutical cessation aids in helping people quit,” he added.

“The fact that the proportion of smokers using e-cigarettes for cessation dropped from 17% to 12% was unexpected, and it suggests that the belief that they are a cessation aid is declining,” he said.

The implication for clinical practice is that e-cigarettes are not a useful tool for smoking cessation, Dr. Pierce said. “We are not finding any evidence in this very large nationally representative study that smokers who switch to getting their nicotine from e-cigarettes are less likely to relapse back to cigarette smoking,” he said.

“We don’t know about the high-nicotine versions,” he added. 
 

New review advises against e-cigarettes for cessation

A recent review article published in JAMA supported the use of pharmacotherapy and behavioral support for smokers wanting to quit. In the review, Nancy A. Rigotti, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues summarized the evidence for managing tobacco smoking in clinical practice.

“The health risk from cigarette smoking is primarily due to chemicals produced by the burning of tobacco and not to nicotine,” they noted. However, the physical dependence on nicotine makes quitting a challenge, but it is one worth pursuing, the authors said.

The authors of this review identified 30 reviews, 12 randomized clinical trials, and 7 recent guidelines and evidence reviews. Their key message: Pharmacotherapy and behavioral support are effective when used alone, but even more effective when combined. Pharmacotherapy helps reduce the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, while behavioral intervention tackles the challenge of changing learned behaviors associated with smoking, the researchers said.

Although combining medications, such as varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy or bupropion might improve successful quit rates, these combinations have not been well studied, they noted.

With regard to e-cigarettes, the researchers cited a 2021 Cochrane review of 16,759 individuals who used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, which found no evidence of harm, but insufficient evidence to asses the balance of risks vs. benefits.

In addition to the lack of randomized trials, “the FDA regulates e-cigarettes as tobacco products, not as medical products and has not evaluated any e-cigarette for medical use as a cessation aid,” the authors of the new review noted.

The review was limited by several factors, including the lack of quality assessment for the selected studies and the exclusion of pharmacotherapy not licensed in the United States.

Commenting on the JAMA paper, Dr. Pierce said, “This review looks like a number of Cochrane Reports that have been published recently. Of course, it only considers randomized trials and not population evidence.”

“If public health had limited itself to this form of evidence, then we still would not know that smoking caused cancer,” he noted. “Randomized trials are very important for testing new drugs; they use selected populations and provide considerable support that is not available in the real world. Sometimes they do not generalize to the population.”
 

Findings may guide patient conversations

The Tobacco Control study was important, because few studies on e-cigarettes have been conducted, said Linda Girgis, MD, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., in an interview.

“As clinicians, we do not have a lot of data available in order to make clinical decisions that are evidence based. Also, getting patients to quit smoking is often very difficult, and having more tools available is a great benefit; however, we need to have the evidence that these tools are effective,” she said.

Dr. Girgis also said she was not surprised by the findings.

“Patients still have the same concerns from e-cigarettes regarding nicotine exposure, but just to a lesser degree; and we still don’t know the long-term effects of e-cigarette use, she said. Based on these studies, recommending e-cigarettes for smokers looking to quit may not be the best method, she noted.

“While it may seem reasonable that exposing lungs to lower doses of nicotine will reduce harm, we need to see actual evidence of this. Also, we also need to study the additives that are frequently used in e-cigs, such as artificial flavorings, to see what harms they may pose, she emphasized.

With regard to the JAMA review, Dr. Girgis said she agreed with the recommendations for pharmacotherapy and behavior therapy as first-line treatments for smoking cessation. “There is evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these methods, and they have been used for decades,” she said.

Dr. Girgis added that there is a role for e-cigarettes in smoking cessation strategies as a method of harm reduction, but pointed out the problem of many people thinking these products are safe and not understanding the hazards they pose.

“They think they can replace smoking with e-cigarettes and be safe from the health risks associated with smoking. I think if the plan were to switch to e-cigarettes for a short period and then quit, there would be a role,” Dr. Girgis said. “However, replacing one risk for another may reduce harm, but doesn’t eliminate it.”

“To continue to use e-cigarettes indefinitely should not be the goal,” she added.

The Tobacco Control study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of the University of California. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The JAMA study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funds to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group. Lead author Dr. Rigotti disclosed funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Achieve Life Sciences and personal fees from UpToDate and Achieve Life Sciences. Dr. Girgis had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 2/28/2022.

Use of e-cigarettes was not more effective than other methods at helping cigarette smokers quit, authors of new research found.

From 2013 to 2017, e-cigarette sales in the United States nearly doubled, driven by a rapid uptake of use by adolescents, wrote Riufeng Chen, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues, in their paper published in Tobacco Control. However, the subsequent effect of increased e-cigarette use on smoking cessation have not been examined, they said.

In their study, Dr. Chen and colleagues analyzed data from 3,578 previous-year smokers with a recent quit attempt and 1,323 recent former smokers who were part of the PATH cohort in 2017. The participants reported using e-cigarettes or other products to quit cigarette smoking. The primary outcomes were at least 12 months of cigarette abstinence, and tobacco abstinence in 2019. In 2017, 32.8% of established smokers reported trying to quit. Of these, 12.6% used e-cigarettes to help them quit. Cigarette abstinence for at least 12 months for these individuals was 9.9%, which was lower than for those who used either nicotine replacement therapy or a pharmaceutical aid only (15.2%), and about half of the 18.6% abstinence in those who used no products to help them quit.

“In our study, e-cigarettes resulted in seven fewer successful quitters than those who used pharmaceutical aids,” emphasized corresponding author, John P. Pierce, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Among smokers attempting to quit, the adjusted risk difference for cigarette abstinence for a least 12 months with e-cigarettes vs. pharmaceutical aids was –7.3%, and –7.7% for e-cigarettes vs. other smoking cessation methods.

*“Among recent former smokers who had switched to daily use of e-cigarettes in 2017, 43.2% had successfully quit cigarette smoking by 2019, which was similar to those who used e-cigarettes on a nondaily basis (34.6%) or to those who switched to another tobacco product, whether daily (43.6%) or nondaily (44.7%),” the researchers wrote.

The rapid growth in e-cigarette use between 2014 and 2017 has been attributed in part to aggressive marketing of high-nicotine e-cigarettes, they said. “The high-nicotine JUUL e-cigarette has been noted as the closest match to cigarettes in both nicotine delivery and user satisfaction, which should make it one of the best candidates as a product to which smokers could switch in order to maintain their nicotine habit,” they said in their discussion of the findings.

More research needed

The researchers acknowledged the need to review more recent data.

“When we looked ahead to 2019, recent former smokers had started using high-nicotine e-cigarettes. The effectiveness of high-nicotine e-cigarettes at preventing relapse will require another follow-up PATH survey,” they said.

Among recent former smokers, 2.2% reported switching to a high-nicotine e-cigarette. Although individuals who switched to e-cigarettes showed a higher rate of relapse to cigarettes than those who did not switch to other tobacco or e-cigarette products, this difference was not significant.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and inability to control for all potential confounding factors, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large and representative study population, and the inclusion of biological samples to validate self-reported smoking, they said.
 

Several findings surprised study author

Dr. Pierce said he was surprised by several aspects of the study findings.

“First of all, contrary to what we expected, there was a 25% decline in using e-cigarettes to quit, compared to the previous year (not the 40% increase that was expected from the increase in e-cigarette sales) and almost no smokers were using high-nicotine JUUL products to help them quit,” he said. “In this study, e-cigarettes were much less helpful (7 less successful quitters per 100) than pharmaceutical cessation aids in helping people quit,” he added.

“The fact that the proportion of smokers using e-cigarettes for cessation dropped from 17% to 12% was unexpected, and it suggests that the belief that they are a cessation aid is declining,” he said.

The implication for clinical practice is that e-cigarettes are not a useful tool for smoking cessation, Dr. Pierce said. “We are not finding any evidence in this very large nationally representative study that smokers who switch to getting their nicotine from e-cigarettes are less likely to relapse back to cigarette smoking,” he said.

“We don’t know about the high-nicotine versions,” he added. 
 

New review advises against e-cigarettes for cessation

A recent review article published in JAMA supported the use of pharmacotherapy and behavioral support for smokers wanting to quit. In the review, Nancy A. Rigotti, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues summarized the evidence for managing tobacco smoking in clinical practice.

“The health risk from cigarette smoking is primarily due to chemicals produced by the burning of tobacco and not to nicotine,” they noted. However, the physical dependence on nicotine makes quitting a challenge, but it is one worth pursuing, the authors said.

The authors of this review identified 30 reviews, 12 randomized clinical trials, and 7 recent guidelines and evidence reviews. Their key message: Pharmacotherapy and behavioral support are effective when used alone, but even more effective when combined. Pharmacotherapy helps reduce the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, while behavioral intervention tackles the challenge of changing learned behaviors associated with smoking, the researchers said.

Although combining medications, such as varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy or bupropion might improve successful quit rates, these combinations have not been well studied, they noted.

With regard to e-cigarettes, the researchers cited a 2021 Cochrane review of 16,759 individuals who used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, which found no evidence of harm, but insufficient evidence to asses the balance of risks vs. benefits.

In addition to the lack of randomized trials, “the FDA regulates e-cigarettes as tobacco products, not as medical products and has not evaluated any e-cigarette for medical use as a cessation aid,” the authors of the new review noted.

The review was limited by several factors, including the lack of quality assessment for the selected studies and the exclusion of pharmacotherapy not licensed in the United States.

Commenting on the JAMA paper, Dr. Pierce said, “This review looks like a number of Cochrane Reports that have been published recently. Of course, it only considers randomized trials and not population evidence.”

“If public health had limited itself to this form of evidence, then we still would not know that smoking caused cancer,” he noted. “Randomized trials are very important for testing new drugs; they use selected populations and provide considerable support that is not available in the real world. Sometimes they do not generalize to the population.”
 

Findings may guide patient conversations

The Tobacco Control study was important, because few studies on e-cigarettes have been conducted, said Linda Girgis, MD, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., in an interview.

“As clinicians, we do not have a lot of data available in order to make clinical decisions that are evidence based. Also, getting patients to quit smoking is often very difficult, and having more tools available is a great benefit; however, we need to have the evidence that these tools are effective,” she said.

Dr. Girgis also said she was not surprised by the findings.

“Patients still have the same concerns from e-cigarettes regarding nicotine exposure, but just to a lesser degree; and we still don’t know the long-term effects of e-cigarette use, she said. Based on these studies, recommending e-cigarettes for smokers looking to quit may not be the best method, she noted.

“While it may seem reasonable that exposing lungs to lower doses of nicotine will reduce harm, we need to see actual evidence of this. Also, we also need to study the additives that are frequently used in e-cigs, such as artificial flavorings, to see what harms they may pose, she emphasized.

With regard to the JAMA review, Dr. Girgis said she agreed with the recommendations for pharmacotherapy and behavior therapy as first-line treatments for smoking cessation. “There is evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these methods, and they have been used for decades,” she said.

Dr. Girgis added that there is a role for e-cigarettes in smoking cessation strategies as a method of harm reduction, but pointed out the problem of many people thinking these products are safe and not understanding the hazards they pose.

“They think they can replace smoking with e-cigarettes and be safe from the health risks associated with smoking. I think if the plan were to switch to e-cigarettes for a short period and then quit, there would be a role,” Dr. Girgis said. “However, replacing one risk for another may reduce harm, but doesn’t eliminate it.”

“To continue to use e-cigarettes indefinitely should not be the goal,” she added.

The Tobacco Control study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of the University of California. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The JAMA study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funds to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group. Lead author Dr. Rigotti disclosed funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Achieve Life Sciences and personal fees from UpToDate and Achieve Life Sciences. Dr. Girgis had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 2/28/2022.

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

While endovascular therapy is now well established to be of benefit in patients with occlusion of a large cerebral vessel and a small or moderate infarct area of the brain, a new study suggests that this treatment could also be effective for patients with strokes that have caused a larger area of ischemic damage.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Shinichi Yoshimura, MD, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan. The study was also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with its presentation at the ISC meeting.

The trial showed that among patients with acute stroke and a large ischemic brain region, functional outcomes at 90 days were better with endovascular therapy and medical care than with medical care alone.

Patients who received endovascular therapy were more than twice as likely to have a good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days, than those who received medical care alone.

While the rate of intracranial hemorrhage increased with endovascular therapy, authors of the study and outside commentators suggested that the benefit appeared to outweigh the risk. “Our results provide strong evidence that endovascular therapy improves patient outcomes when the infarct area is large,” Dr. Yoshimura concluded at the meeting, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “The question of strokes with a large core stroke being an exclusion criteria for endovascular therapy is arguably one of the hottest topics the field is facing at this time. There are several randomized trials ongoing aiming to answer this question.”

“The RESCUE-JAPAN trial is the first of these trials to report and shed some light on this issue,” Dr. Jovin added. “The results appear to show that these patients with large core infarcts have just as much benefit from endovascular therapy as patients with smaller infarcts.”

Dr. Jovin described these findings as encouraging but also surprising. “When these large core randomized trials were planned, there was a belief that there would be benefit at some level. But what is surprising to me is that in this trial the benefit was similar to that seen in trials in patients with moderate or small core infarcts. This begs the question of whether we should care about the size of the infarct when we are considering taking these patients for thrombectomy,” he said.

Confirmation needed

On whether this will change practice, Dr. Jovin cautioned that this was just one study with a relatively small number of patients. “I think it is important that all the other randomized trials ongoing should continue so that we have a definitive answer to this question,” he said.

In his presentation, Dr. Yoshimura explained that current guidelines recommended endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral vessel occlusion and a small or moderate infarct size – an ASPECTS score (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score) of 6 or higher. The ASPECTS score has a scale of 1-10, with lower values indicating larger infarction.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study included 203 patients with occlusion of large cerebral vessels and sizable strokes on imaging, as indicated by an ASPECTS score of 3 to 5.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive endovascular therapy with medical care (endovascular-therapy group) or medical therapy alone (medical-care group) within 6 hours after they were last known to be well or within 24 hours if there was no early change on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images indicating that the infarction was recent.

The percentage of patients with a good outcome as defined by an mRS score of 0 to 3 at 90 days, the primary outcome, was 31.0% in the endovascular-therapy group and 12.7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 4.37; P = .002).

Secondary outcomes were mRS scores of 0 to 2 and 0 to 1, an ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores toward a better outcome at 90 days, and an improvement of at least 8 points in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater deficit) at 48 hours.

An mRS score of 0 to 2 was seen in 14% of patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 6.9% in the medical-care group (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 4.84), and an mRS score of 0 to 1 was reported in 5% of the endovascular group versus 2.9% of the medical group (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 6.93).

The ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores also favored endovascular therapy (common odds ratio, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.46 to 4.01).

An improvement of at least 8 points on the NIHSS score at 48 hours was observed in 31.0% of the patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 8.8% of those in the medical-care group (RR, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.76 to 7.00).

In terms of safety, any intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 58.0% of patients in the endovascular group and 31.4% of those in the medical therapy group (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.58; P < .001).

There was also a trend toward an increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the endovascular group (9% vs. 4.9%), but this did not reach significance (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.64 to 5.29; P = .25).

In the NEJM paper, the authors pointed out that the ASPECTS value in most of the patients in this study was determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI, as MRI is widely used in Japan for the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke. They noted that differences between ASPECTS values based on CT results and those based on diffusion-weighted MRI results should be considered in the interpretation of the results and that previous studies have suggested that an ASPECTS value determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI may be one level lower than that determined with the use of CT.

They also noted that there was a relatively low use of thrombolysis in the trial (27% to 29%), which may have altered the outcomes in both groups and disadvantaged the medical-care group. However, they add that most guidelines recommend against the use of thrombolysis when there is extensive ischemic change on imaging.
 

Risk/benefit trade-off

Commenting on the trade-off between benefits and risks in the study, Dr. Jovin said the increase in intracranial hemorrhage seen in the endovascular group was similar to that seen in other situations.

“This is not really any different from what is seen when giving tPA [tissue plasminogen activator] to stroke patients or when performing thrombectomy in small or moderate core strokes – we know that intracranial hemorrhage is the price to pay,” he stated.

“While the increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was nonsignificant, the trend is very clear, and I believe it is real,” Dr. Jovin said. “But I think what matters – and what matters to patients – is that there is a much higher chance of having a good outcome with endovascular therapy. I think most patients will accept the extra risk of intracranial hemorrhage if there is an even higher chance of having a better neurological outcome. This is no different to the approach that we take when we treat patients with IV tPA.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the RESCUE-JAPAN study did not include the largest core infarcts (ASPECTS score 0-1), but he added that these very large core infarcts are quite rare – especially in patients in the early time window.

He concluded that the study provided important information but cautioned that, with just 200 patients, the findings needed confirmation from other randomized trials that are ongoing.

Also speaking at the ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said previous trials had established endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral artery occlusions who have primarily preserved brain tissue and small infarct cores.

“We have picked off the low-lying fruit – the patients with small areas of infarcted brain. But perhaps most patients do not fit into this category and now we are seeing trials addressing these groups,” he said. “This initial study suggests that these patients with larger core infarcts can indeed still benefit from this therapy tremendously.”

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study was supported in part by the Mihara Cerebrovascular Disorder Research Promotion Fund and the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy. There was no industry involvement. Dr. Yoshimura reported research grants from Stryker, Siemens Healthineers, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Teijin Pharma, Chugai Pharmaceutical, HEALIOS, Asahi Kasei Medical, Kowa, and CSL Behring; and lecturer fees from Stryker, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Kaneka, Terumo, Biomedical Solutions, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

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

While endovascular therapy is now well established to be of benefit in patients with occlusion of a large cerebral vessel and a small or moderate infarct area of the brain, a new study suggests that this treatment could also be effective for patients with strokes that have caused a larger area of ischemic damage.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Shinichi Yoshimura, MD, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan. The study was also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with its presentation at the ISC meeting.

The trial showed that among patients with acute stroke and a large ischemic brain region, functional outcomes at 90 days were better with endovascular therapy and medical care than with medical care alone.

Patients who received endovascular therapy were more than twice as likely to have a good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days, than those who received medical care alone.

While the rate of intracranial hemorrhage increased with endovascular therapy, authors of the study and outside commentators suggested that the benefit appeared to outweigh the risk. “Our results provide strong evidence that endovascular therapy improves patient outcomes when the infarct area is large,” Dr. Yoshimura concluded at the meeting, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “The question of strokes with a large core stroke being an exclusion criteria for endovascular therapy is arguably one of the hottest topics the field is facing at this time. There are several randomized trials ongoing aiming to answer this question.”

“The RESCUE-JAPAN trial is the first of these trials to report and shed some light on this issue,” Dr. Jovin added. “The results appear to show that these patients with large core infarcts have just as much benefit from endovascular therapy as patients with smaller infarcts.”

Dr. Jovin described these findings as encouraging but also surprising. “When these large core randomized trials were planned, there was a belief that there would be benefit at some level. But what is surprising to me is that in this trial the benefit was similar to that seen in trials in patients with moderate or small core infarcts. This begs the question of whether we should care about the size of the infarct when we are considering taking these patients for thrombectomy,” he said.

Confirmation needed

On whether this will change practice, Dr. Jovin cautioned that this was just one study with a relatively small number of patients. “I think it is important that all the other randomized trials ongoing should continue so that we have a definitive answer to this question,” he said.

In his presentation, Dr. Yoshimura explained that current guidelines recommended endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral vessel occlusion and a small or moderate infarct size – an ASPECTS score (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score) of 6 or higher. The ASPECTS score has a scale of 1-10, with lower values indicating larger infarction.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study included 203 patients with occlusion of large cerebral vessels and sizable strokes on imaging, as indicated by an ASPECTS score of 3 to 5.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive endovascular therapy with medical care (endovascular-therapy group) or medical therapy alone (medical-care group) within 6 hours after they were last known to be well or within 24 hours if there was no early change on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images indicating that the infarction was recent.

The percentage of patients with a good outcome as defined by an mRS score of 0 to 3 at 90 days, the primary outcome, was 31.0% in the endovascular-therapy group and 12.7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 4.37; P = .002).

Secondary outcomes were mRS scores of 0 to 2 and 0 to 1, an ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores toward a better outcome at 90 days, and an improvement of at least 8 points in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater deficit) at 48 hours.

An mRS score of 0 to 2 was seen in 14% of patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 6.9% in the medical-care group (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 4.84), and an mRS score of 0 to 1 was reported in 5% of the endovascular group versus 2.9% of the medical group (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 6.93).

The ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores also favored endovascular therapy (common odds ratio, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.46 to 4.01).

An improvement of at least 8 points on the NIHSS score at 48 hours was observed in 31.0% of the patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 8.8% of those in the medical-care group (RR, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.76 to 7.00).

In terms of safety, any intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 58.0% of patients in the endovascular group and 31.4% of those in the medical therapy group (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.58; P < .001).

There was also a trend toward an increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the endovascular group (9% vs. 4.9%), but this did not reach significance (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.64 to 5.29; P = .25).

In the NEJM paper, the authors pointed out that the ASPECTS value in most of the patients in this study was determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI, as MRI is widely used in Japan for the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke. They noted that differences between ASPECTS values based on CT results and those based on diffusion-weighted MRI results should be considered in the interpretation of the results and that previous studies have suggested that an ASPECTS value determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI may be one level lower than that determined with the use of CT.

They also noted that there was a relatively low use of thrombolysis in the trial (27% to 29%), which may have altered the outcomes in both groups and disadvantaged the medical-care group. However, they add that most guidelines recommend against the use of thrombolysis when there is extensive ischemic change on imaging.
 

Risk/benefit trade-off

Commenting on the trade-off between benefits and risks in the study, Dr. Jovin said the increase in intracranial hemorrhage seen in the endovascular group was similar to that seen in other situations.

“This is not really any different from what is seen when giving tPA [tissue plasminogen activator] to stroke patients or when performing thrombectomy in small or moderate core strokes – we know that intracranial hemorrhage is the price to pay,” he stated.

“While the increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was nonsignificant, the trend is very clear, and I believe it is real,” Dr. Jovin said. “But I think what matters – and what matters to patients – is that there is a much higher chance of having a good outcome with endovascular therapy. I think most patients will accept the extra risk of intracranial hemorrhage if there is an even higher chance of having a better neurological outcome. This is no different to the approach that we take when we treat patients with IV tPA.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the RESCUE-JAPAN study did not include the largest core infarcts (ASPECTS score 0-1), but he added that these very large core infarcts are quite rare – especially in patients in the early time window.

He concluded that the study provided important information but cautioned that, with just 200 patients, the findings needed confirmation from other randomized trials that are ongoing.

Also speaking at the ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said previous trials had established endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral artery occlusions who have primarily preserved brain tissue and small infarct cores.

“We have picked off the low-lying fruit – the patients with small areas of infarcted brain. But perhaps most patients do not fit into this category and now we are seeing trials addressing these groups,” he said. “This initial study suggests that these patients with larger core infarcts can indeed still benefit from this therapy tremendously.”

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study was supported in part by the Mihara Cerebrovascular Disorder Research Promotion Fund and the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy. There was no industry involvement. Dr. Yoshimura reported research grants from Stryker, Siemens Healthineers, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Teijin Pharma, Chugai Pharmaceutical, HEALIOS, Asahi Kasei Medical, Kowa, and CSL Behring; and lecturer fees from Stryker, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Kaneka, Terumo, Biomedical Solutions, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

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

While endovascular therapy is now well established to be of benefit in patients with occlusion of a large cerebral vessel and a small or moderate infarct area of the brain, a new study suggests that this treatment could also be effective for patients with strokes that have caused a larger area of ischemic damage.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Shinichi Yoshimura, MD, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan. The study was also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with its presentation at the ISC meeting.

The trial showed that among patients with acute stroke and a large ischemic brain region, functional outcomes at 90 days were better with endovascular therapy and medical care than with medical care alone.

Patients who received endovascular therapy were more than twice as likely to have a good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days, than those who received medical care alone.

While the rate of intracranial hemorrhage increased with endovascular therapy, authors of the study and outside commentators suggested that the benefit appeared to outweigh the risk. “Our results provide strong evidence that endovascular therapy improves patient outcomes when the infarct area is large,” Dr. Yoshimura concluded at the meeting, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “The question of strokes with a large core stroke being an exclusion criteria for endovascular therapy is arguably one of the hottest topics the field is facing at this time. There are several randomized trials ongoing aiming to answer this question.”

“The RESCUE-JAPAN trial is the first of these trials to report and shed some light on this issue,” Dr. Jovin added. “The results appear to show that these patients with large core infarcts have just as much benefit from endovascular therapy as patients with smaller infarcts.”

Dr. Jovin described these findings as encouraging but also surprising. “When these large core randomized trials were planned, there was a belief that there would be benefit at some level. But what is surprising to me is that in this trial the benefit was similar to that seen in trials in patients with moderate or small core infarcts. This begs the question of whether we should care about the size of the infarct when we are considering taking these patients for thrombectomy,” he said.

Confirmation needed

On whether this will change practice, Dr. Jovin cautioned that this was just one study with a relatively small number of patients. “I think it is important that all the other randomized trials ongoing should continue so that we have a definitive answer to this question,” he said.

In his presentation, Dr. Yoshimura explained that current guidelines recommended endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral vessel occlusion and a small or moderate infarct size – an ASPECTS score (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score) of 6 or higher. The ASPECTS score has a scale of 1-10, with lower values indicating larger infarction.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study included 203 patients with occlusion of large cerebral vessels and sizable strokes on imaging, as indicated by an ASPECTS score of 3 to 5.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive endovascular therapy with medical care (endovascular-therapy group) or medical therapy alone (medical-care group) within 6 hours after they were last known to be well or within 24 hours if there was no early change on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images indicating that the infarction was recent.

The percentage of patients with a good outcome as defined by an mRS score of 0 to 3 at 90 days, the primary outcome, was 31.0% in the endovascular-therapy group and 12.7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 4.37; P = .002).

Secondary outcomes were mRS scores of 0 to 2 and 0 to 1, an ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores toward a better outcome at 90 days, and an improvement of at least 8 points in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater deficit) at 48 hours.

An mRS score of 0 to 2 was seen in 14% of patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 6.9% in the medical-care group (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 4.84), and an mRS score of 0 to 1 was reported in 5% of the endovascular group versus 2.9% of the medical group (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 6.93).

The ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores also favored endovascular therapy (common odds ratio, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.46 to 4.01).

An improvement of at least 8 points on the NIHSS score at 48 hours was observed in 31.0% of the patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 8.8% of those in the medical-care group (RR, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.76 to 7.00).

In terms of safety, any intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 58.0% of patients in the endovascular group and 31.4% of those in the medical therapy group (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.58; P < .001).

There was also a trend toward an increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the endovascular group (9% vs. 4.9%), but this did not reach significance (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.64 to 5.29; P = .25).

In the NEJM paper, the authors pointed out that the ASPECTS value in most of the patients in this study was determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI, as MRI is widely used in Japan for the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke. They noted that differences between ASPECTS values based on CT results and those based on diffusion-weighted MRI results should be considered in the interpretation of the results and that previous studies have suggested that an ASPECTS value determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI may be one level lower than that determined with the use of CT.

They also noted that there was a relatively low use of thrombolysis in the trial (27% to 29%), which may have altered the outcomes in both groups and disadvantaged the medical-care group. However, they add that most guidelines recommend against the use of thrombolysis when there is extensive ischemic change on imaging.
 

Risk/benefit trade-off

Commenting on the trade-off between benefits and risks in the study, Dr. Jovin said the increase in intracranial hemorrhage seen in the endovascular group was similar to that seen in other situations.

“This is not really any different from what is seen when giving tPA [tissue plasminogen activator] to stroke patients or when performing thrombectomy in small or moderate core strokes – we know that intracranial hemorrhage is the price to pay,” he stated.

“While the increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was nonsignificant, the trend is very clear, and I believe it is real,” Dr. Jovin said. “But I think what matters – and what matters to patients – is that there is a much higher chance of having a good outcome with endovascular therapy. I think most patients will accept the extra risk of intracranial hemorrhage if there is an even higher chance of having a better neurological outcome. This is no different to the approach that we take when we treat patients with IV tPA.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the RESCUE-JAPAN study did not include the largest core infarcts (ASPECTS score 0-1), but he added that these very large core infarcts are quite rare – especially in patients in the early time window.

He concluded that the study provided important information but cautioned that, with just 200 patients, the findings needed confirmation from other randomized trials that are ongoing.

Also speaking at the ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said previous trials had established endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral artery occlusions who have primarily preserved brain tissue and small infarct cores.

“We have picked off the low-lying fruit – the patients with small areas of infarcted brain. But perhaps most patients do not fit into this category and now we are seeing trials addressing these groups,” he said. “This initial study suggests that these patients with larger core infarcts can indeed still benefit from this therapy tremendously.”

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study was supported in part by the Mihara Cerebrovascular Disorder Research Promotion Fund and the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy. There was no industry involvement. Dr. Yoshimura reported research grants from Stryker, Siemens Healthineers, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Teijin Pharma, Chugai Pharmaceutical, HEALIOS, Asahi Kasei Medical, Kowa, and CSL Behring; and lecturer fees from Stryker, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Kaneka, Terumo, Biomedical Solutions, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

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

Nearly one-third of adults over age 65 developed one or more new medical conditions in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, according to new research.

The findings of the observational study, which were published in the BMJ, show the risk of a new condition being triggered by COVID is more than twice as high in seniors, compared with younger patients. Plus, the researchers observed an even higher risk among those who were hospitalized, with nearly half (46%) of patients having developed new conditions after the acute COVID-19 infection period.

Respiratory failure with shortness of breath was the most common postacute sequela, but a wide range of heart, kidney, lung, liver, cognitive, mental health, and other conditions were diagnosed at least 3 weeks after initial infection and persisted beyond 30 days.

This is one of the first studies to specifically describe the incidence and severity of new conditions triggered by COVID-19 infection in a general sample of older adults, said study author Ken Cohen MD, FACP, executive director of translational research at Optum Labs and national senior medical director at Optum Care.

“Much of what has been published on the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 has been predominantly from a younger population, and many of the patients had been hospitalized,” Dr. Cohen noted. “This was the first study to focus on a large population of seniors, most of whom did not require hospitalization.”

Dr. Cohen and colleagues reviewed the health insurance records of more than 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before April 2020. They also matched individuals by age, race, sex, hospitalization status, and other factors to comparison groups without COVID-19 (one from 2020 and one from 2019), and to a group diagnosed with other lower respiratory tract viral infections before the pandemic.
 

Risk of developing new conditions was higher in hospitalized

After acute COVID-19 infection, 32% of seniors sought medical care for at least one new medical condition in 2020, compared with 21% of uninfected people in the same year.

The most commonly observed conditions included:

• Respiratory failure (7.55% higher risk).
• Fatigue (5.66% higher risk).
• High blood pressure (4.43% higher risk).
• Memory problems (2.63% higher risk).
• Kidney injury (2.59% higher risk).
• Mental health diagnoses (2.5% higher risk).
• Blood-clotting disorders (1.47 % higher risk).
• Heart rhythm disorders (2.9% higher risk).

The risk of developing new conditions was even higher among those 23,486 who were hospitalized in 2020. Those individuals showed a 23.6% higher risk for developing at least one new condition, compared with uninfected seniors in the same year. Also, patients older than 75 had a higher risk for neurological disorders, including dementia, encephalopathy, and memory problems. The researchers also found that respiratory failure and kidney injury were significantly more likely to affect men and Black patients.

When those who had COVID were compared with the group with other lower respiratory viral infections before the pandemic, only the risks of respiratory failure (2.39% higher), dementia (0.71% higher), and fatigue (0.18% higher) were higher.

Primary care providers can learn from these data to better evaluate and manage their geriatric patients with COVID-19 infection, said Amit Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, in an interview.

“We must assess older patients who have had COVID-19 for more than just improvement from the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in post-COVID follow-up visits,” he said. “Older individuals with frailty have vulnerability to subsequent complications from severe illnesses and it is common to see post-illness diagnoses, such as new diagnosis of delirium; dementia; or renal, respiratory, or cardiac issues that is precipitated by the original illness. This study confirms that this is likely the case with COVID-19 as well.

“Primary care physicians should be vigilant for these complications, including attention to the rehabilitation needs of older patients with longer-term postviral fatigue from COVID-19,” Dr. Shah added.
 

Data predates ‘Omicron wave’

It remains uncertain whether sequelae will differ with the Omicron variant, but the findings remain applicable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We know that illness from the Omicron variant is on average less severe in those that have been vaccinated. However, throughout the Omicron wave, individuals who have not been vaccinated continue to have significant rates of serious illness and hospitalization,” he said.

“Our findings showed that serious illness with hospitalization was associated with a higher rate of sequelae. It can therefore be inferred that the rates of sequelae seen in our study would continue to occur in unvaccinated individuals who contract Omicron, but might occur less frequently in vaccinated individuals who contract Omicron and have less severe illness.”

Dr. Cohen serves as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Nearly one-third of adults over age 65 developed one or more new medical conditions in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, according to new research.

The findings of the observational study, which were published in the BMJ, show the risk of a new condition being triggered by COVID is more than twice as high in seniors, compared with younger patients. Plus, the researchers observed an even higher risk among those who were hospitalized, with nearly half (46%) of patients having developed new conditions after the acute COVID-19 infection period.

Respiratory failure with shortness of breath was the most common postacute sequela, but a wide range of heart, kidney, lung, liver, cognitive, mental health, and other conditions were diagnosed at least 3 weeks after initial infection and persisted beyond 30 days.

This is one of the first studies to specifically describe the incidence and severity of new conditions triggered by COVID-19 infection in a general sample of older adults, said study author Ken Cohen MD, FACP, executive director of translational research at Optum Labs and national senior medical director at Optum Care.

“Much of what has been published on the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 has been predominantly from a younger population, and many of the patients had been hospitalized,” Dr. Cohen noted. “This was the first study to focus on a large population of seniors, most of whom did not require hospitalization.”

Dr. Cohen and colleagues reviewed the health insurance records of more than 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before April 2020. They also matched individuals by age, race, sex, hospitalization status, and other factors to comparison groups without COVID-19 (one from 2020 and one from 2019), and to a group diagnosed with other lower respiratory tract viral infections before the pandemic.
 

Risk of developing new conditions was higher in hospitalized

After acute COVID-19 infection, 32% of seniors sought medical care for at least one new medical condition in 2020, compared with 21% of uninfected people in the same year.

The most commonly observed conditions included:

• Respiratory failure (7.55% higher risk).
• Fatigue (5.66% higher risk).
• High blood pressure (4.43% higher risk).
• Memory problems (2.63% higher risk).
• Kidney injury (2.59% higher risk).
• Mental health diagnoses (2.5% higher risk).
• Blood-clotting disorders (1.47 % higher risk).
• Heart rhythm disorders (2.9% higher risk).

The risk of developing new conditions was even higher among those 23,486 who were hospitalized in 2020. Those individuals showed a 23.6% higher risk for developing at least one new condition, compared with uninfected seniors in the same year. Also, patients older than 75 had a higher risk for neurological disorders, including dementia, encephalopathy, and memory problems. The researchers also found that respiratory failure and kidney injury were significantly more likely to affect men and Black patients.

When those who had COVID were compared with the group with other lower respiratory viral infections before the pandemic, only the risks of respiratory failure (2.39% higher), dementia (0.71% higher), and fatigue (0.18% higher) were higher.

Primary care providers can learn from these data to better evaluate and manage their geriatric patients with COVID-19 infection, said Amit Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, in an interview.

“We must assess older patients who have had COVID-19 for more than just improvement from the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in post-COVID follow-up visits,” he said. “Older individuals with frailty have vulnerability to subsequent complications from severe illnesses and it is common to see post-illness diagnoses, such as new diagnosis of delirium; dementia; or renal, respiratory, or cardiac issues that is precipitated by the original illness. This study confirms that this is likely the case with COVID-19 as well.

“Primary care physicians should be vigilant for these complications, including attention to the rehabilitation needs of older patients with longer-term postviral fatigue from COVID-19,” Dr. Shah added.
 

Data predates ‘Omicron wave’

It remains uncertain whether sequelae will differ with the Omicron variant, but the findings remain applicable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We know that illness from the Omicron variant is on average less severe in those that have been vaccinated. However, throughout the Omicron wave, individuals who have not been vaccinated continue to have significant rates of serious illness and hospitalization,” he said.

“Our findings showed that serious illness with hospitalization was associated with a higher rate of sequelae. It can therefore be inferred that the rates of sequelae seen in our study would continue to occur in unvaccinated individuals who contract Omicron, but might occur less frequently in vaccinated individuals who contract Omicron and have less severe illness.”

Dr. Cohen serves as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Nearly one-third of adults over age 65 developed one or more new medical conditions in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, according to new research.

The findings of the observational study, which were published in the BMJ, show the risk of a new condition being triggered by COVID is more than twice as high in seniors, compared with younger patients. Plus, the researchers observed an even higher risk among those who were hospitalized, with nearly half (46%) of patients having developed new conditions after the acute COVID-19 infection period.

Respiratory failure with shortness of breath was the most common postacute sequela, but a wide range of heart, kidney, lung, liver, cognitive, mental health, and other conditions were diagnosed at least 3 weeks after initial infection and persisted beyond 30 days.

This is one of the first studies to specifically describe the incidence and severity of new conditions triggered by COVID-19 infection in a general sample of older adults, said study author Ken Cohen MD, FACP, executive director of translational research at Optum Labs and national senior medical director at Optum Care.

“Much of what has been published on the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 has been predominantly from a younger population, and many of the patients had been hospitalized,” Dr. Cohen noted. “This was the first study to focus on a large population of seniors, most of whom did not require hospitalization.”

Dr. Cohen and colleagues reviewed the health insurance records of more than 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before April 2020. They also matched individuals by age, race, sex, hospitalization status, and other factors to comparison groups without COVID-19 (one from 2020 and one from 2019), and to a group diagnosed with other lower respiratory tract viral infections before the pandemic.
 

Risk of developing new conditions was higher in hospitalized

After acute COVID-19 infection, 32% of seniors sought medical care for at least one new medical condition in 2020, compared with 21% of uninfected people in the same year.

The most commonly observed conditions included:

• Respiratory failure (7.55% higher risk).
• Fatigue (5.66% higher risk).
• High blood pressure (4.43% higher risk).
• Memory problems (2.63% higher risk).
• Kidney injury (2.59% higher risk).
• Mental health diagnoses (2.5% higher risk).
• Blood-clotting disorders (1.47 % higher risk).
• Heart rhythm disorders (2.9% higher risk).

The risk of developing new conditions was even higher among those 23,486 who were hospitalized in 2020. Those individuals showed a 23.6% higher risk for developing at least one new condition, compared with uninfected seniors in the same year. Also, patients older than 75 had a higher risk for neurological disorders, including dementia, encephalopathy, and memory problems. The researchers also found that respiratory failure and kidney injury were significantly more likely to affect men and Black patients.

When those who had COVID were compared with the group with other lower respiratory viral infections before the pandemic, only the risks of respiratory failure (2.39% higher), dementia (0.71% higher), and fatigue (0.18% higher) were higher.

Primary care providers can learn from these data to better evaluate and manage their geriatric patients with COVID-19 infection, said Amit Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, in an interview.

“We must assess older patients who have had COVID-19 for more than just improvement from the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in post-COVID follow-up visits,” he said. “Older individuals with frailty have vulnerability to subsequent complications from severe illnesses and it is common to see post-illness diagnoses, such as new diagnosis of delirium; dementia; or renal, respiratory, or cardiac issues that is precipitated by the original illness. This study confirms that this is likely the case with COVID-19 as well.

“Primary care physicians should be vigilant for these complications, including attention to the rehabilitation needs of older patients with longer-term postviral fatigue from COVID-19,” Dr. Shah added.
 

Data predates ‘Omicron wave’

It remains uncertain whether sequelae will differ with the Omicron variant, but the findings remain applicable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We know that illness from the Omicron variant is on average less severe in those that have been vaccinated. However, throughout the Omicron wave, individuals who have not been vaccinated continue to have significant rates of serious illness and hospitalization,” he said.

“Our findings showed that serious illness with hospitalization was associated with a higher rate of sequelae. It can therefore be inferred that the rates of sequelae seen in our study would continue to occur in unvaccinated individuals who contract Omicron, but might occur less frequently in vaccinated individuals who contract Omicron and have less severe illness.”

Dr. Cohen serves as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Women who used marijuana (cannabis) at least four times in the previous month (heavy users) were less likely to have type 2 diabetes than women who were light users or nonusers, in a nationally representative U.S. observational study.

In contrast, there were no differences in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in men who were light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers.
 

Kerkez/Getty Images

These findings are based on data from the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), whereby participants self-reported their cannabis use.

The study by Ayobami S. Ogunsola, MD, MPH, a graduate student at Texas A&M University, College Station, and colleagues was recently published in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. 
 

What do the findings mean?

Although overall findings linking cannabis use and diabetes have been inconsistent, the gender differences in the current study are consistent with animal studies and some clinical studies, senior author Ibraheem M. Karaye, MD, MPH, said in an interview.

However, these gender differences need to be confirmed, and “we strongly recommend that more biological or biochemical studies be conducted that could actually tell us the mechanisms,” said Dr. Karaye, an assistant professor in the department of population health, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

“It’s indisputable that medical marijuana has some medical benefits,” he added. “Women [who use cannabis] have been shown to lose more weight than men, for example.”

“If women [cannabis users] are less likely to develop diabetes or more likely to express improvement of symptoms of diabetes,” he noted, “this means that hyperglycemic medications that are being prescribed should be watched scrupulously. Otherwise, there is a risk that [women] may overrespond.”

That is, Dr. Karaye continued, women “may be at risk of developing hypoglycemia because the cannabis is acting synergistically with the regular drug that is being used to treat the diabetes.” 

U.S. clinicians, especially in states with legalized medical marijuana, need to be aware of the potential synergy.

“One would have to consider the patient as a whole,” he stressed. “For example, a woman that uses medical marijuana may actually respond differently to hyperglycemic medication.”
 

Conflicting reports explained by sex differences?

Evidence on whether cannabis use is linked with type 2 diabetes is limited and conflicting, the researchers wrote. They hypothesized that these conflicting findings might be explained by sex differences.

To “help inform current diabetes prevention and mitigation efforts,” they investigated sex differences in cannabis use and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in 15,602 men and women in the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 NHANES surveys.

Participants were classified as having type 2 diabetes if they had a physician’s diagnosis; a 2-hour plasma glucose of at least 200 mg/dL (in a glucose tolerance test); fasting blood glucose of at least 126 mg/dL; or A1c of at least 6.5%.

About half of respondents were women (52%) and close to half (44%) were age 18-39.

More than a third (38%) had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2, indicating obesity.

Roughly 1 in 10 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (13.5%) or A1c of at least 6.5% (9.8%).

Close to a fifth smoked cigarettes (16%). Similarly, 14.5% used cannabis at least four times a week, 3.3% used it less often, and the rest did not use it. Half of participants were not physically active (49%).

Just over half had at least a college education (55%).

Heavy cannabis users were more likely to be younger than age 40 (57% of men, 57% of women), college graduates (54% of men, 63% of women), cigarette smokers (79% of men, 83% of women), and physically inactive (39% of men, 49% of women).

Among women, heavy cannabis users were 49% less likely to have type 2 diabetes than nonusers, after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, physical activity, tobacco use, alcohol use, marital status, difficulty walking, employment status, income, and BMI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.84).

There were no significant differences between light cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in women, or between light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in men.
 

Limitations, yet biologically plausible

The researchers acknowledged several study limitations.

They do not know how long participants had used marijuana. The men and women may have underreported their cannabis use, especially in states where medical marijuana was not legal, and the NHANES data did not specify whether the cannabis was recreational or medicinal.

The study may have been underpowered to detect a smaller difference in men who used versus did not use marijuana.

And importantly, this was an observational study (a snapshot at one point in time), so it cannot say whether the heavy cannabis use in women caused a decreased likelihood of diabetes.

Nevertheless, the inverse association between cannabis use and presence of type 2 diabetes is biologically plausible, Dr. Ogunsola and colleagues wrote.

The two major cannabis compounds, cannabidiol and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, stimulate CBD1 and CBD2 receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems, respectively. And “activation of the CBD1 receptor increases insulin secretion, glucagon, and somatostatin, and activates metabolic processes in fat and skeletal muscles – mechanisms that improve glucose disposal,” they explained.

The researchers speculated that the sex differences they found for this association may be caused by differences in sex hormones, or the endocannabinoid system, or fat deposits.

Therefore, “additional studies are needed to investigate the sex-based heterogeneity reported in this study and to elucidate potential mechanisms for the observation,” they concluded.

The study did not receive any funding and the researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Women who used marijuana (cannabis) at least four times in the previous month (heavy users) were less likely to have type 2 diabetes than women who were light users or nonusers, in a nationally representative U.S. observational study.

In contrast, there were no differences in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in men who were light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers.
 

Kerkez/Getty Images

These findings are based on data from the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), whereby participants self-reported their cannabis use.

The study by Ayobami S. Ogunsola, MD, MPH, a graduate student at Texas A&M University, College Station, and colleagues was recently published in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. 
 

What do the findings mean?

Although overall findings linking cannabis use and diabetes have been inconsistent, the gender differences in the current study are consistent with animal studies and some clinical studies, senior author Ibraheem M. Karaye, MD, MPH, said in an interview.

However, these gender differences need to be confirmed, and “we strongly recommend that more biological or biochemical studies be conducted that could actually tell us the mechanisms,” said Dr. Karaye, an assistant professor in the department of population health, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

“It’s indisputable that medical marijuana has some medical benefits,” he added. “Women [who use cannabis] have been shown to lose more weight than men, for example.”

“If women [cannabis users] are less likely to develop diabetes or more likely to express improvement of symptoms of diabetes,” he noted, “this means that hyperglycemic medications that are being prescribed should be watched scrupulously. Otherwise, there is a risk that [women] may overrespond.”

That is, Dr. Karaye continued, women “may be at risk of developing hypoglycemia because the cannabis is acting synergistically with the regular drug that is being used to treat the diabetes.” 

U.S. clinicians, especially in states with legalized medical marijuana, need to be aware of the potential synergy.

“One would have to consider the patient as a whole,” he stressed. “For example, a woman that uses medical marijuana may actually respond differently to hyperglycemic medication.”
 

Conflicting reports explained by sex differences?

Evidence on whether cannabis use is linked with type 2 diabetes is limited and conflicting, the researchers wrote. They hypothesized that these conflicting findings might be explained by sex differences.

To “help inform current diabetes prevention and mitigation efforts,” they investigated sex differences in cannabis use and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in 15,602 men and women in the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 NHANES surveys.

Participants were classified as having type 2 diabetes if they had a physician’s diagnosis; a 2-hour plasma glucose of at least 200 mg/dL (in a glucose tolerance test); fasting blood glucose of at least 126 mg/dL; or A1c of at least 6.5%.

About half of respondents were women (52%) and close to half (44%) were age 18-39.

More than a third (38%) had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2, indicating obesity.

Roughly 1 in 10 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (13.5%) or A1c of at least 6.5% (9.8%).

Close to a fifth smoked cigarettes (16%). Similarly, 14.5% used cannabis at least four times a week, 3.3% used it less often, and the rest did not use it. Half of participants were not physically active (49%).

Just over half had at least a college education (55%).

Heavy cannabis users were more likely to be younger than age 40 (57% of men, 57% of women), college graduates (54% of men, 63% of women), cigarette smokers (79% of men, 83% of women), and physically inactive (39% of men, 49% of women).

Among women, heavy cannabis users were 49% less likely to have type 2 diabetes than nonusers, after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, physical activity, tobacco use, alcohol use, marital status, difficulty walking, employment status, income, and BMI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.84).

There were no significant differences between light cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in women, or between light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in men.
 

Limitations, yet biologically plausible

The researchers acknowledged several study limitations.

They do not know how long participants had used marijuana. The men and women may have underreported their cannabis use, especially in states where medical marijuana was not legal, and the NHANES data did not specify whether the cannabis was recreational or medicinal.

The study may have been underpowered to detect a smaller difference in men who used versus did not use marijuana.

And importantly, this was an observational study (a snapshot at one point in time), so it cannot say whether the heavy cannabis use in women caused a decreased likelihood of diabetes.

Nevertheless, the inverse association between cannabis use and presence of type 2 diabetes is biologically plausible, Dr. Ogunsola and colleagues wrote.

The two major cannabis compounds, cannabidiol and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, stimulate CBD1 and CBD2 receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems, respectively. And “activation of the CBD1 receptor increases insulin secretion, glucagon, and somatostatin, and activates metabolic processes in fat and skeletal muscles – mechanisms that improve glucose disposal,” they explained.

The researchers speculated that the sex differences they found for this association may be caused by differences in sex hormones, or the endocannabinoid system, or fat deposits.

Therefore, “additional studies are needed to investigate the sex-based heterogeneity reported in this study and to elucidate potential mechanisms for the observation,” they concluded.

The study did not receive any funding and the researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Women who used marijuana (cannabis) at least four times in the previous month (heavy users) were less likely to have type 2 diabetes than women who were light users or nonusers, in a nationally representative U.S. observational study.

In contrast, there were no differences in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in men who were light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers.
 

Kerkez/Getty Images

These findings are based on data from the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), whereby participants self-reported their cannabis use.

The study by Ayobami S. Ogunsola, MD, MPH, a graduate student at Texas A&M University, College Station, and colleagues was recently published in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. 
 

What do the findings mean?

Although overall findings linking cannabis use and diabetes have been inconsistent, the gender differences in the current study are consistent with animal studies and some clinical studies, senior author Ibraheem M. Karaye, MD, MPH, said in an interview.

However, these gender differences need to be confirmed, and “we strongly recommend that more biological or biochemical studies be conducted that could actually tell us the mechanisms,” said Dr. Karaye, an assistant professor in the department of population health, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

“It’s indisputable that medical marijuana has some medical benefits,” he added. “Women [who use cannabis] have been shown to lose more weight than men, for example.”

“If women [cannabis users] are less likely to develop diabetes or more likely to express improvement of symptoms of diabetes,” he noted, “this means that hyperglycemic medications that are being prescribed should be watched scrupulously. Otherwise, there is a risk that [women] may overrespond.”

That is, Dr. Karaye continued, women “may be at risk of developing hypoglycemia because the cannabis is acting synergistically with the regular drug that is being used to treat the diabetes.” 

U.S. clinicians, especially in states with legalized medical marijuana, need to be aware of the potential synergy.

“One would have to consider the patient as a whole,” he stressed. “For example, a woman that uses medical marijuana may actually respond differently to hyperglycemic medication.”
 

Conflicting reports explained by sex differences?

Evidence on whether cannabis use is linked with type 2 diabetes is limited and conflicting, the researchers wrote. They hypothesized that these conflicting findings might be explained by sex differences.

To “help inform current diabetes prevention and mitigation efforts,” they investigated sex differences in cannabis use and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in 15,602 men and women in the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 NHANES surveys.

Participants were classified as having type 2 diabetes if they had a physician’s diagnosis; a 2-hour plasma glucose of at least 200 mg/dL (in a glucose tolerance test); fasting blood glucose of at least 126 mg/dL; or A1c of at least 6.5%.

About half of respondents were women (52%) and close to half (44%) were age 18-39.

More than a third (38%) had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2, indicating obesity.

Roughly 1 in 10 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (13.5%) or A1c of at least 6.5% (9.8%).

Close to a fifth smoked cigarettes (16%). Similarly, 14.5% used cannabis at least four times a week, 3.3% used it less often, and the rest did not use it. Half of participants were not physically active (49%).

Just over half had at least a college education (55%).

Heavy cannabis users were more likely to be younger than age 40 (57% of men, 57% of women), college graduates (54% of men, 63% of women), cigarette smokers (79% of men, 83% of women), and physically inactive (39% of men, 49% of women).

Among women, heavy cannabis users were 49% less likely to have type 2 diabetes than nonusers, after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, physical activity, tobacco use, alcohol use, marital status, difficulty walking, employment status, income, and BMI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.84).

There were no significant differences between light cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in women, or between light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in men.
 

Limitations, yet biologically plausible

The researchers acknowledged several study limitations.

They do not know how long participants had used marijuana. The men and women may have underreported their cannabis use, especially in states where medical marijuana was not legal, and the NHANES data did not specify whether the cannabis was recreational or medicinal.

The study may have been underpowered to detect a smaller difference in men who used versus did not use marijuana.

And importantly, this was an observational study (a snapshot at one point in time), so it cannot say whether the heavy cannabis use in women caused a decreased likelihood of diabetes.

Nevertheless, the inverse association between cannabis use and presence of type 2 diabetes is biologically plausible, Dr. Ogunsola and colleagues wrote.

The two major cannabis compounds, cannabidiol and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, stimulate CBD1 and CBD2 receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems, respectively. And “activation of the CBD1 receptor increases insulin secretion, glucagon, and somatostatin, and activates metabolic processes in fat and skeletal muscles – mechanisms that improve glucose disposal,” they explained.

The researchers speculated that the sex differences they found for this association may be caused by differences in sex hormones, or the endocannabinoid system, or fat deposits.

Therefore, “additional studies are needed to investigate the sex-based heterogeneity reported in this study and to elucidate potential mechanisms for the observation,” they concluded.

The study did not receive any funding and the researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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