Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

As rheumatologists contend with vaccine hesitancy among certain subsets of patients, the American College of Rheumatology has released updated clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), including new recommendations on supplemental and booster doses.

The revised guidance from this fifth version of the ACR guidelines includes strongly recommending that all RMD patients receive a booster after their primary vaccine series, regardless of whether they have been naturally infected with COVID-19. In addition, they strongly recommend third supplemental doses for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) who likely mounted an inadequate vaccine response, which would then be followed by a fourth booster dose as advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for immunocompromised individuals.

South_agency/Getty Images

Other recommendations include pre-exposure prophylaxis monoclonal antibody treatment for high-risk AIIRD patients, defined as those with moderate to severely compromised immune systems who may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, when it is available and authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as monoclonal antibody therapy for postexposure prophylaxis of asymptomatic, recently exposed high-risk AIIRD patients or as treatment for newly symptomatic, high-risk AIIRD patients. The ACR guidance notes that, currently, neither the monoclonal antibodies bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) nor casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), are licensed or available under an emergency use authorization given their lack of activity against the Omicron variant, the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the United States.

Finally, the guidance clarified that the timing of intravenous immunoglobulin doses does not need to be modified around the administration of COVID vaccine doses, based on moderate consensus among task force members.

Vaccine hesitancy in community rheumatology practices

The revised guidelines were released just as Arthritis & Rheumatology published a new study that assessed vaccine hesitancy among rheumatology patients on immunomodulatory therapies. A three-item electronic survey was conducted at 101 offices within a community practice–based rheumatology research network and ultimately collected responses from 58,529 patients, 20,987 of whom had an AIIRD and were receiving targeted therapies like biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the total respondents, 77% (n = 43,675) had been vaccinated, 16.9% were not vaccinated and did not plan to be, and 6.1% were not vaccinated but planned to be. However, AIIRD patients were 16% less likely to be vaccinated, compared with the other patients, such as those with osteoarthritis or osteoporosis who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (76.9% vs. 87%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.92; P < .001). Multivariable analysis also found that older patients (OR, 1.49 per 10 years) and Asians (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.77-3.33) were more likely to be vaccinated.

Courtesy UAB Photo

“Rheumatologists need to be asking their patients more than just: ‘Are you vaccinated?’ ” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, head of the ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force and a coauthor of the vaccine hesitancy study, said in an interview. “A year ago, that was a fine approach, but now they need to be asking whether you’ve been vaccinated, and with what, and how many times, and how recently. There are a whole lot of subtleties there; ‘vaccinated: yes or no’ is just the tip of the iceberg.”

His research into the vaccine hesitant includes recent anecdotal data from thousands of patients treated in local rheumatology community practices, many of whom cited long-term safety data and potential side effects as reasons why they were unwilling to get vaccinated. But despite their on-paper responses, he cautioned rheumatologists to think critically when determining which patients may truly be open to vaccination.

“If you’re designing strategies to affect vaccine hesitancy, you may be wasting your time with some people,” said Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “A critical need is to figure out who are the patients who may be amendable to more information or an intervention or a little bit more time and care, and who are the people where you know, this is a lost cause: You don’t get a flu shot, you haven’t been vaccinated for shingles, [and] you’re not going to get this one either.

“In terms of a research agenda, how do we develop efficient, simple, short screening tools?” he added. “Something with a few helpful questions, on a patient portal or an iPad, that will do a good job identifying your patients at risk who haven’t had vaccination but that you might be able to spend time with, intervene, and actually change their mind. If you spend gobs of time with everyone, you’ll help some people, but clinicians don’t have an infinite amount of time.”

One of the authors of the vaccine hesitancy study acknowledged being employed by the rheumatology research network that hosted the survey. Several others, including Dr. Curtis, reported receiving grants and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

As rheumatologists contend with vaccine hesitancy among certain subsets of patients, the American College of Rheumatology has released updated clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), including new recommendations on supplemental and booster doses.

The revised guidance from this fifth version of the ACR guidelines includes strongly recommending that all RMD patients receive a booster after their primary vaccine series, regardless of whether they have been naturally infected with COVID-19. In addition, they strongly recommend third supplemental doses for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) who likely mounted an inadequate vaccine response, which would then be followed by a fourth booster dose as advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for immunocompromised individuals.

South_agency/Getty Images

Other recommendations include pre-exposure prophylaxis monoclonal antibody treatment for high-risk AIIRD patients, defined as those with moderate to severely compromised immune systems who may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, when it is available and authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as monoclonal antibody therapy for postexposure prophylaxis of asymptomatic, recently exposed high-risk AIIRD patients or as treatment for newly symptomatic, high-risk AIIRD patients. The ACR guidance notes that, currently, neither the monoclonal antibodies bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) nor casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), are licensed or available under an emergency use authorization given their lack of activity against the Omicron variant, the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the United States.

Finally, the guidance clarified that the timing of intravenous immunoglobulin doses does not need to be modified around the administration of COVID vaccine doses, based on moderate consensus among task force members.

Vaccine hesitancy in community rheumatology practices

The revised guidelines were released just as Arthritis & Rheumatology published a new study that assessed vaccine hesitancy among rheumatology patients on immunomodulatory therapies. A three-item electronic survey was conducted at 101 offices within a community practice–based rheumatology research network and ultimately collected responses from 58,529 patients, 20,987 of whom had an AIIRD and were receiving targeted therapies like biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the total respondents, 77% (n = 43,675) had been vaccinated, 16.9% were not vaccinated and did not plan to be, and 6.1% were not vaccinated but planned to be. However, AIIRD patients were 16% less likely to be vaccinated, compared with the other patients, such as those with osteoarthritis or osteoporosis who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (76.9% vs. 87%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.92; P < .001). Multivariable analysis also found that older patients (OR, 1.49 per 10 years) and Asians (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.77-3.33) were more likely to be vaccinated.

Courtesy UAB Photo

“Rheumatologists need to be asking their patients more than just: ‘Are you vaccinated?’ ” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, head of the ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force and a coauthor of the vaccine hesitancy study, said in an interview. “A year ago, that was a fine approach, but now they need to be asking whether you’ve been vaccinated, and with what, and how many times, and how recently. There are a whole lot of subtleties there; ‘vaccinated: yes or no’ is just the tip of the iceberg.”

His research into the vaccine hesitant includes recent anecdotal data from thousands of patients treated in local rheumatology community practices, many of whom cited long-term safety data and potential side effects as reasons why they were unwilling to get vaccinated. But despite their on-paper responses, he cautioned rheumatologists to think critically when determining which patients may truly be open to vaccination.

“If you’re designing strategies to affect vaccine hesitancy, you may be wasting your time with some people,” said Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “A critical need is to figure out who are the patients who may be amendable to more information or an intervention or a little bit more time and care, and who are the people where you know, this is a lost cause: You don’t get a flu shot, you haven’t been vaccinated for shingles, [and] you’re not going to get this one either.

“In terms of a research agenda, how do we develop efficient, simple, short screening tools?” he added. “Something with a few helpful questions, on a patient portal or an iPad, that will do a good job identifying your patients at risk who haven’t had vaccination but that you might be able to spend time with, intervene, and actually change their mind. If you spend gobs of time with everyone, you’ll help some people, but clinicians don’t have an infinite amount of time.”

One of the authors of the vaccine hesitancy study acknowledged being employed by the rheumatology research network that hosted the survey. Several others, including Dr. Curtis, reported receiving grants and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

As rheumatologists contend with vaccine hesitancy among certain subsets of patients, the American College of Rheumatology has released updated clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), including new recommendations on supplemental and booster doses.

The revised guidance from this fifth version of the ACR guidelines includes strongly recommending that all RMD patients receive a booster after their primary vaccine series, regardless of whether they have been naturally infected with COVID-19. In addition, they strongly recommend third supplemental doses for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) who likely mounted an inadequate vaccine response, which would then be followed by a fourth booster dose as advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for immunocompromised individuals.

South_agency/Getty Images

Other recommendations include pre-exposure prophylaxis monoclonal antibody treatment for high-risk AIIRD patients, defined as those with moderate to severely compromised immune systems who may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, when it is available and authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as monoclonal antibody therapy for postexposure prophylaxis of asymptomatic, recently exposed high-risk AIIRD patients or as treatment for newly symptomatic, high-risk AIIRD patients. The ACR guidance notes that, currently, neither the monoclonal antibodies bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) nor casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), are licensed or available under an emergency use authorization given their lack of activity against the Omicron variant, the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the United States.

Finally, the guidance clarified that the timing of intravenous immunoglobulin doses does not need to be modified around the administration of COVID vaccine doses, based on moderate consensus among task force members.

Vaccine hesitancy in community rheumatology practices

The revised guidelines were released just as Arthritis & Rheumatology published a new study that assessed vaccine hesitancy among rheumatology patients on immunomodulatory therapies. A three-item electronic survey was conducted at 101 offices within a community practice–based rheumatology research network and ultimately collected responses from 58,529 patients, 20,987 of whom had an AIIRD and were receiving targeted therapies like biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the total respondents, 77% (n = 43,675) had been vaccinated, 16.9% were not vaccinated and did not plan to be, and 6.1% were not vaccinated but planned to be. However, AIIRD patients were 16% less likely to be vaccinated, compared with the other patients, such as those with osteoarthritis or osteoporosis who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (76.9% vs. 87%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.92; P < .001). Multivariable analysis also found that older patients (OR, 1.49 per 10 years) and Asians (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.77-3.33) were more likely to be vaccinated.

Courtesy UAB Photo

“Rheumatologists need to be asking their patients more than just: ‘Are you vaccinated?’ ” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, head of the ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force and a coauthor of the vaccine hesitancy study, said in an interview. “A year ago, that was a fine approach, but now they need to be asking whether you’ve been vaccinated, and with what, and how many times, and how recently. There are a whole lot of subtleties there; ‘vaccinated: yes or no’ is just the tip of the iceberg.”

His research into the vaccine hesitant includes recent anecdotal data from thousands of patients treated in local rheumatology community practices, many of whom cited long-term safety data and potential side effects as reasons why they were unwilling to get vaccinated. But despite their on-paper responses, he cautioned rheumatologists to think critically when determining which patients may truly be open to vaccination.

“If you’re designing strategies to affect vaccine hesitancy, you may be wasting your time with some people,” said Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “A critical need is to figure out who are the patients who may be amendable to more information or an intervention or a little bit more time and care, and who are the people where you know, this is a lost cause: You don’t get a flu shot, you haven’t been vaccinated for shingles, [and] you’re not going to get this one either.

“In terms of a research agenda, how do we develop efficient, simple, short screening tools?” he added. “Something with a few helpful questions, on a patient portal or an iPad, that will do a good job identifying your patients at risk who haven’t had vaccination but that you might be able to spend time with, intervene, and actually change their mind. If you spend gobs of time with everyone, you’ll help some people, but clinicians don’t have an infinite amount of time.”

One of the authors of the vaccine hesitancy study acknowledged being employed by the rheumatology research network that hosted the survey. Several others, including Dr. Curtis, reported receiving grants and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

Among healthy middle-aged men, those who were more anxious were more likely to develop high levels of multiple biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk over a 40-year follow-up in a new study.

“By middle adulthood, higher anxiety levels are associated with stable differences” in biomarkers of risk for coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke, and type 2 diabetes, which “are maintained into older ages,” the researchers wrote.

Anxious individuals “may experience deteriorations in cardiometabolic health earlier in life and remain on a stable trajectory of heightened risk into older ages,” they concluded.

The study, led by Lewina Lee, PhD, was published online Jan. 24, 2022, in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“Men who had higher levels of anxiety at the beginning of the study had consistently higher biological risk for cardiometabolic disease than less anxious men from midlife into old age,” Dr. Lee, assistant professor of psychiatry, Boston University, summarized in an email.

Clinicians may not screen for heart disease and diabetes, and/or only discuss lifestyle modifications when patients are older or have the first signs of disease, she added.

However, the study findings “suggest that worries and anxiety are associated with preclinical pathophysiological processes that tend to culminate in cardiometabolic disease” and show “the importance of screening for mental health difficulties, such as worries and anxiety, in men as early as in their 30s and 40s,” she stressed.

Since most of the men were White (97%) and veterans (94%), “it would be important for future studies to evaluate if these associations exist among women, people from diverse racial and ethnic groups, and in more socioeconomically varying samples, and to consider how anxiety may relate to the development of cardiometabolic risk in much younger individuals than those in our study,” Dr. Lee said in a press release from the American Heart Association.

“This study adds to the growing body of research that link psychological health to cardiovascular risk,” Glenn N. Levine, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“We know that factors such as depression and stress can increase cardiac risk; this study further supports that anxiety can as well,” added Dr. Levine, chief of cardiology, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston.

“Everyone experiences some anxiety in their life,” he added. However, “if a provider senses that a patient’s anxiety is far beyond the ‘normal’ that we all have from time to time, and it is seemingly adversely impacting both their psychological and physical health, it would be reasonable to suggest to the patient that it might be useful to speak with a mental health professional, and if the patient is receptive, to then make a formal consultation or referral,” said Dr. Levine, who was writing group chair of a recent AHA Scientific Statement on mind-heart-body connection.
 

Neuroticism and worry

Several studies have linked anxiety to a greater risk of cardiometabolic disease onset, Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote, but it is unclear if anxious individuals have a steadily worsening risk as they age, or if they have a higher risk in middle age, which stays the same in older age.

To investigate this, they analyzed data from 1561 men who were seen at the VA Boston outpatient clinic and did not have CAD, type 2 diabetes, stroke, or cancer when they enrolled in the Normative Aging Study.

The men had a mean age of 53 years (range, 33-84) in 1975 and were followed until 2015 or until dropout from the study or death.

At baseline, the study participants filled in the Eysenck Personality Inventory, which assesses neuroticism, and also responded to a scale indicating how much they worry about 20 issues (excluding health).

“Neuroticism,” the researchers explained, “is a tendency to perceive experiences as threatening, feel that challenges are uncontrollable, and experience frequent and disproportionately intense negative emotions,” such as fear, anxiety, sadness, and anger, “across many situations.”

“Worry refers to attempts to solve a problem where future outcome is uncertain and potentially positive or negative,” Dr. Lee noted. Although worry can be healthy and lead to constructive solutions, “it may be unhealthy, especially when it becomes uncontrollable and interferes with day-to-day functioning.”

Of note, in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association removed the term neurosis from its diagnostic manual. What was previously called neurosis is included as part of generalized anxiety disorder; GAD also encompasses excessive worry.
 

Cardiometabolic risk from midlife to old age

The men in the current study had on-site physical examinations every 3-5 years.

The researchers calculated the men’s cardiometabolic risk score (from 0 to 7) by assigning 1 point each for the following: systolic blood pressure greater than 130 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than 85 mm Hg, total cholesterol of at least 240 mg/dL, triglycerides of at least 150 mg/dL, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, glucose of at least 100 mg/dL, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate of at least 14 mm/hour.

Alternatively, patients were assigned a point each for taking medication that could affect these markers (except for body mass index).

Overall, on average, at baseline, the men had a cardiometabolic risk score of 2.9. From age 33-65, this score increased to 3.8, and then it did not increase as much later on.

That is, the cardiometabolic risk score increased by 0.8 per decade until age 65, followed by a slower increase of 0.5 per decade.

At all ages, men with higher levels of neuroticism or worry had a higher cardiometabolic risk score

Each additional standard deviation of neuroticism was associated with a 13% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up, after adjusting for age, demographics, and family history of CAD, but the relationship was attenuated after also adjusting for health behaviors (for example, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and past-year physician visit at baseline).

Similarly, each additional standard deviation of worry was associated with a 10% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up after the same adjustments, and was also no longer significantly different after the same further adjustments.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and a Senior Research Career Scientist Award from the Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs. The Normative Aging Study is a research component of the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center and is supported by the VA Cooperative Studies Program/Epidemiological Research Centers. The study authors and Dr. Levine disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among healthy middle-aged men, those who were more anxious were more likely to develop high levels of multiple biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk over a 40-year follow-up in a new study.

“By middle adulthood, higher anxiety levels are associated with stable differences” in biomarkers of risk for coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke, and type 2 diabetes, which “are maintained into older ages,” the researchers wrote.

Anxious individuals “may experience deteriorations in cardiometabolic health earlier in life and remain on a stable trajectory of heightened risk into older ages,” they concluded.

The study, led by Lewina Lee, PhD, was published online Jan. 24, 2022, in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“Men who had higher levels of anxiety at the beginning of the study had consistently higher biological risk for cardiometabolic disease than less anxious men from midlife into old age,” Dr. Lee, assistant professor of psychiatry, Boston University, summarized in an email.

Clinicians may not screen for heart disease and diabetes, and/or only discuss lifestyle modifications when patients are older or have the first signs of disease, she added.

However, the study findings “suggest that worries and anxiety are associated with preclinical pathophysiological processes that tend to culminate in cardiometabolic disease” and show “the importance of screening for mental health difficulties, such as worries and anxiety, in men as early as in their 30s and 40s,” she stressed.

Since most of the men were White (97%) and veterans (94%), “it would be important for future studies to evaluate if these associations exist among women, people from diverse racial and ethnic groups, and in more socioeconomically varying samples, and to consider how anxiety may relate to the development of cardiometabolic risk in much younger individuals than those in our study,” Dr. Lee said in a press release from the American Heart Association.

“This study adds to the growing body of research that link psychological health to cardiovascular risk,” Glenn N. Levine, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“We know that factors such as depression and stress can increase cardiac risk; this study further supports that anxiety can as well,” added Dr. Levine, chief of cardiology, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston.

“Everyone experiences some anxiety in their life,” he added. However, “if a provider senses that a patient’s anxiety is far beyond the ‘normal’ that we all have from time to time, and it is seemingly adversely impacting both their psychological and physical health, it would be reasonable to suggest to the patient that it might be useful to speak with a mental health professional, and if the patient is receptive, to then make a formal consultation or referral,” said Dr. Levine, who was writing group chair of a recent AHA Scientific Statement on mind-heart-body connection.
 

Neuroticism and worry

Several studies have linked anxiety to a greater risk of cardiometabolic disease onset, Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote, but it is unclear if anxious individuals have a steadily worsening risk as they age, or if they have a higher risk in middle age, which stays the same in older age.

To investigate this, they analyzed data from 1561 men who were seen at the VA Boston outpatient clinic and did not have CAD, type 2 diabetes, stroke, or cancer when they enrolled in the Normative Aging Study.

The men had a mean age of 53 years (range, 33-84) in 1975 and were followed until 2015 or until dropout from the study or death.

At baseline, the study participants filled in the Eysenck Personality Inventory, which assesses neuroticism, and also responded to a scale indicating how much they worry about 20 issues (excluding health).

“Neuroticism,” the researchers explained, “is a tendency to perceive experiences as threatening, feel that challenges are uncontrollable, and experience frequent and disproportionately intense negative emotions,” such as fear, anxiety, sadness, and anger, “across many situations.”

“Worry refers to attempts to solve a problem where future outcome is uncertain and potentially positive or negative,” Dr. Lee noted. Although worry can be healthy and lead to constructive solutions, “it may be unhealthy, especially when it becomes uncontrollable and interferes with day-to-day functioning.”

Of note, in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association removed the term neurosis from its diagnostic manual. What was previously called neurosis is included as part of generalized anxiety disorder; GAD also encompasses excessive worry.
 

Cardiometabolic risk from midlife to old age

The men in the current study had on-site physical examinations every 3-5 years.

The researchers calculated the men’s cardiometabolic risk score (from 0 to 7) by assigning 1 point each for the following: systolic blood pressure greater than 130 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than 85 mm Hg, total cholesterol of at least 240 mg/dL, triglycerides of at least 150 mg/dL, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, glucose of at least 100 mg/dL, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate of at least 14 mm/hour.

Alternatively, patients were assigned a point each for taking medication that could affect these markers (except for body mass index).

Overall, on average, at baseline, the men had a cardiometabolic risk score of 2.9. From age 33-65, this score increased to 3.8, and then it did not increase as much later on.

That is, the cardiometabolic risk score increased by 0.8 per decade until age 65, followed by a slower increase of 0.5 per decade.

At all ages, men with higher levels of neuroticism or worry had a higher cardiometabolic risk score

Each additional standard deviation of neuroticism was associated with a 13% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up, after adjusting for age, demographics, and family history of CAD, but the relationship was attenuated after also adjusting for health behaviors (for example, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and past-year physician visit at baseline).

Similarly, each additional standard deviation of worry was associated with a 10% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up after the same adjustments, and was also no longer significantly different after the same further adjustments.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and a Senior Research Career Scientist Award from the Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs. The Normative Aging Study is a research component of the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center and is supported by the VA Cooperative Studies Program/Epidemiological Research Centers. The study authors and Dr. Levine disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among healthy middle-aged men, those who were more anxious were more likely to develop high levels of multiple biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk over a 40-year follow-up in a new study.

“By middle adulthood, higher anxiety levels are associated with stable differences” in biomarkers of risk for coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke, and type 2 diabetes, which “are maintained into older ages,” the researchers wrote.

Anxious individuals “may experience deteriorations in cardiometabolic health earlier in life and remain on a stable trajectory of heightened risk into older ages,” they concluded.

The study, led by Lewina Lee, PhD, was published online Jan. 24, 2022, in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“Men who had higher levels of anxiety at the beginning of the study had consistently higher biological risk for cardiometabolic disease than less anxious men from midlife into old age,” Dr. Lee, assistant professor of psychiatry, Boston University, summarized in an email.

Clinicians may not screen for heart disease and diabetes, and/or only discuss lifestyle modifications when patients are older or have the first signs of disease, she added.

However, the study findings “suggest that worries and anxiety are associated with preclinical pathophysiological processes that tend to culminate in cardiometabolic disease” and show “the importance of screening for mental health difficulties, such as worries and anxiety, in men as early as in their 30s and 40s,” she stressed.

Since most of the men were White (97%) and veterans (94%), “it would be important for future studies to evaluate if these associations exist among women, people from diverse racial and ethnic groups, and in more socioeconomically varying samples, and to consider how anxiety may relate to the development of cardiometabolic risk in much younger individuals than those in our study,” Dr. Lee said in a press release from the American Heart Association.

“This study adds to the growing body of research that link psychological health to cardiovascular risk,” Glenn N. Levine, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an email.

“We know that factors such as depression and stress can increase cardiac risk; this study further supports that anxiety can as well,” added Dr. Levine, chief of cardiology, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston.

“Everyone experiences some anxiety in their life,” he added. However, “if a provider senses that a patient’s anxiety is far beyond the ‘normal’ that we all have from time to time, and it is seemingly adversely impacting both their psychological and physical health, it would be reasonable to suggest to the patient that it might be useful to speak with a mental health professional, and if the patient is receptive, to then make a formal consultation or referral,” said Dr. Levine, who was writing group chair of a recent AHA Scientific Statement on mind-heart-body connection.
 

Neuroticism and worry

Several studies have linked anxiety to a greater risk of cardiometabolic disease onset, Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote, but it is unclear if anxious individuals have a steadily worsening risk as they age, or if they have a higher risk in middle age, which stays the same in older age.

To investigate this, they analyzed data from 1561 men who were seen at the VA Boston outpatient clinic and did not have CAD, type 2 diabetes, stroke, or cancer when they enrolled in the Normative Aging Study.

The men had a mean age of 53 years (range, 33-84) in 1975 and were followed until 2015 or until dropout from the study or death.

At baseline, the study participants filled in the Eysenck Personality Inventory, which assesses neuroticism, and also responded to a scale indicating how much they worry about 20 issues (excluding health).

“Neuroticism,” the researchers explained, “is a tendency to perceive experiences as threatening, feel that challenges are uncontrollable, and experience frequent and disproportionately intense negative emotions,” such as fear, anxiety, sadness, and anger, “across many situations.”

“Worry refers to attempts to solve a problem where future outcome is uncertain and potentially positive or negative,” Dr. Lee noted. Although worry can be healthy and lead to constructive solutions, “it may be unhealthy, especially when it becomes uncontrollable and interferes with day-to-day functioning.”

Of note, in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association removed the term neurosis from its diagnostic manual. What was previously called neurosis is included as part of generalized anxiety disorder; GAD also encompasses excessive worry.
 

Cardiometabolic risk from midlife to old age

The men in the current study had on-site physical examinations every 3-5 years.

The researchers calculated the men’s cardiometabolic risk score (from 0 to 7) by assigning 1 point each for the following: systolic blood pressure greater than 130 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than 85 mm Hg, total cholesterol of at least 240 mg/dL, triglycerides of at least 150 mg/dL, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2, glucose of at least 100 mg/dL, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate of at least 14 mm/hour.

Alternatively, patients were assigned a point each for taking medication that could affect these markers (except for body mass index).

Overall, on average, at baseline, the men had a cardiometabolic risk score of 2.9. From age 33-65, this score increased to 3.8, and then it did not increase as much later on.

That is, the cardiometabolic risk score increased by 0.8 per decade until age 65, followed by a slower increase of 0.5 per decade.

At all ages, men with higher levels of neuroticism or worry had a higher cardiometabolic risk score

Each additional standard deviation of neuroticism was associated with a 13% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up, after adjusting for age, demographics, and family history of CAD, but the relationship was attenuated after also adjusting for health behaviors (for example, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and past-year physician visit at baseline).

Similarly, each additional standard deviation of worry was associated with a 10% increased risk of having six or more of the seven cardiometabolic risk markers during follow-up after the same adjustments, and was also no longer significantly different after the same further adjustments.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and a Senior Research Career Scientist Award from the Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs. The Normative Aging Study is a research component of the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center and is supported by the VA Cooperative Studies Program/Epidemiological Research Centers. The study authors and Dr. Levine disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) draws attention to the important bidirectional link between cardiovascular health and brain health in its annual statistical update on heart disease and stroke.

“For several years now, the AHA and the scientific community have increasingly recognized the connections between cardiovascular health and brain health, so it was time for us to cement this into its own chapter, which we highlight as the brain health chapter,” Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, chair of the statistical update writing group, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an AHA podcast.

“The global rate of brain disease is quickly outpacing heart disease,” Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the AHA, added in a news release.

“The rate of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias rose more than twice as much in the past decade compared to the rate of deaths from heart disease, and that is something we must address,” said Dr. Elkind, with Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“It’s becoming more evident that reducing vascular disease risk factors can make a real difference in helping people live longer, healthier lives, free of heart disease and brain disease,” Dr. Elkind added.

The AHA’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2022 Update was published online January 26 in Circulation).

The report highlights some of the research connecting heart and brain health, including the following:

• A meta-analysis of 139 studies showed that people with midlife hypertension were five times more likely to experience impairment on global cognition and about twice as likely to experience reduced executive function, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• A meta-analysis of four longitudinal studies found that the risk for dementia associated with heart failure was increased nearly twofold.
• In the large prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Neurocognitive Study, atrial fibrillation was associated with greater cognitive decline and dementia over 20 years.
• A meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies (including 24,801 participants) showed that coronary heart disease (CHD) was associated with a 40% increased risk of poor cognitive outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, or cognitive decline.

“This new chapter on brain health was a critical one to add,” Dr. Tsao said in the news release.

“The data we’ve collected brings to light the strong correlations between heart health and brain health and makes it an easy story to tell -- what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Tsao added.

Along with the new chapter on brain health, the 2022 statistical update provides the latest statistics and heart disease and stroke. Among the highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In the United States in 2019, CVD, listed as the underlying cause of death, accounted for 874,613 deaths, about 2,396 deaths each day. On average, someone dies of CVD every 36 seconds.
• CVD claims more lives each year in the United States than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease combined.
• In 2019, CHD was the leading cause (41.3%) of deaths attributable to CVD, followed by other CVD (17.3%), stroke (17.2%), hypertension (11.7%), heart failure (9.9%), and diseases of the arteries (2.8%).
• In 2019, stroke accounted for roughly 1 in every 19 deaths in the United States. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds and someone dies of stroke every 3 minutes 30 seconds. When considered separately from other CVD, stroke ranks number five among all causes of death in the United States.

While the annual statistics update aims to be a contemporary update of annual heart disease and stroke statistics over the past year, it also examines trends over time, Dr. Tsao explains in the podcast.

“One noteworthy point is that we saw a decline in the rate of cardiovascular mortality over the past three decades or so until about 2010. But over the past decade now, we’re also seeing a rise in these numbers,” she said.

This could be due to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor hypertension control, as well as other lifestyle behaviors, Tsao said.
 

Key risk factor data

Each year, the statistical update gauges the cardiovascular health of Americans by tracking seven key health factors and behaviors that increase risk for heart disease and stroke. Below is a snapshot of the latest risk factor data.

Smoking

In 2019, smoking was the leading risk factor for years of life lost to premature death and the third leading risk factor for years of life lived with disability or injury.

According to the 2020 surgeon general’s report on smoking cessation, more than 480,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and more than 41,000 die of secondhand smoke exposure each year (roughly 1 in 5 deaths annually).

One in 7 adults are current smokers, 1 in 6 female adults are current smokers, and 1 in 5 high school students use e-cigarettes.
 

Physical inactivity

In 2018, 25.4% of U.S. adults did not engage in leisure-time physical activity, and only 24.0% met the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for both aerobic and muscle strengthening.

Among U.S. high school students in 2019, only 44.1% were physically active for 60 minutes or more on at least 5 days of the week.
 

Nutrition

While there is some evidence that Americans are improving their diet, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met guidelines for whole grain, whole fruit, and nonstarchy vegetable consumption each day in 2017–2018.

Overweight/obesity

The prevalence of obesity among adults increased from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018 from 30.5% to 42.4%. Overall prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in U.S. youth 2 to 19 years of age increased from 13.9% to 19.3% and 2.6% to 6.1% between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018.

Cholesterol

Close to 94 million (38.1%) U.S. adults have total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher, according to 2015–2018 data; about 28.0 million (11.5%) have total cholesterol of 240 mg/dL or higher; and 27.8% have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (130 mg/dL or higher).

Diabetes

In 2019, 87,647 U.S. deaths were attributed to diabetes; data show that 9.8 million U.S. adults have undiagnosed diabetes, 28.2 million have diagnosed diabetes, and 113.6 million have prediabetes.

Hypertension

A total of 121.5 million (47.3%) U.S. adults have hypertension, based on 2015–2018 data. In 2019, 102,072 U.S. deaths were primarily attributable to hypertension.

This statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Disclosures for the writing committee are listed with the original article.



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

The American Heart Association (AHA) draws attention to the important bidirectional link between cardiovascular health and brain health in its annual statistical update on heart disease and stroke.

“For several years now, the AHA and the scientific community have increasingly recognized the connections between cardiovascular health and brain health, so it was time for us to cement this into its own chapter, which we highlight as the brain health chapter,” Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, chair of the statistical update writing group, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an AHA podcast.

“The global rate of brain disease is quickly outpacing heart disease,” Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the AHA, added in a news release.

“The rate of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias rose more than twice as much in the past decade compared to the rate of deaths from heart disease, and that is something we must address,” said Dr. Elkind, with Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“It’s becoming more evident that reducing vascular disease risk factors can make a real difference in helping people live longer, healthier lives, free of heart disease and brain disease,” Dr. Elkind added.

The AHA’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2022 Update was published online January 26 in Circulation).

The report highlights some of the research connecting heart and brain health, including the following:

• A meta-analysis of 139 studies showed that people with midlife hypertension were five times more likely to experience impairment on global cognition and about twice as likely to experience reduced executive function, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• A meta-analysis of four longitudinal studies found that the risk for dementia associated with heart failure was increased nearly twofold.
• In the large prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Neurocognitive Study, atrial fibrillation was associated with greater cognitive decline and dementia over 20 years.
• A meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies (including 24,801 participants) showed that coronary heart disease (CHD) was associated with a 40% increased risk of poor cognitive outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, or cognitive decline.

“This new chapter on brain health was a critical one to add,” Dr. Tsao said in the news release.

“The data we’ve collected brings to light the strong correlations between heart health and brain health and makes it an easy story to tell -- what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Tsao added.

Along with the new chapter on brain health, the 2022 statistical update provides the latest statistics and heart disease and stroke. Among the highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In the United States in 2019, CVD, listed as the underlying cause of death, accounted for 874,613 deaths, about 2,396 deaths each day. On average, someone dies of CVD every 36 seconds.
• CVD claims more lives each year in the United States than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease combined.
• In 2019, CHD was the leading cause (41.3%) of deaths attributable to CVD, followed by other CVD (17.3%), stroke (17.2%), hypertension (11.7%), heart failure (9.9%), and diseases of the arteries (2.8%).
• In 2019, stroke accounted for roughly 1 in every 19 deaths in the United States. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds and someone dies of stroke every 3 minutes 30 seconds. When considered separately from other CVD, stroke ranks number five among all causes of death in the United States.

While the annual statistics update aims to be a contemporary update of annual heart disease and stroke statistics over the past year, it also examines trends over time, Dr. Tsao explains in the podcast.

“One noteworthy point is that we saw a decline in the rate of cardiovascular mortality over the past three decades or so until about 2010. But over the past decade now, we’re also seeing a rise in these numbers,” she said.

This could be due to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor hypertension control, as well as other lifestyle behaviors, Tsao said.
 

Key risk factor data

Each year, the statistical update gauges the cardiovascular health of Americans by tracking seven key health factors and behaviors that increase risk for heart disease and stroke. Below is a snapshot of the latest risk factor data.

Smoking

In 2019, smoking was the leading risk factor for years of life lost to premature death and the third leading risk factor for years of life lived with disability or injury.

According to the 2020 surgeon general’s report on smoking cessation, more than 480,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and more than 41,000 die of secondhand smoke exposure each year (roughly 1 in 5 deaths annually).

One in 7 adults are current smokers, 1 in 6 female adults are current smokers, and 1 in 5 high school students use e-cigarettes.
 

Physical inactivity

In 2018, 25.4% of U.S. adults did not engage in leisure-time physical activity, and only 24.0% met the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for both aerobic and muscle strengthening.

Among U.S. high school students in 2019, only 44.1% were physically active for 60 minutes or more on at least 5 days of the week.
 

Nutrition

While there is some evidence that Americans are improving their diet, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met guidelines for whole grain, whole fruit, and nonstarchy vegetable consumption each day in 2017–2018.

Overweight/obesity

The prevalence of obesity among adults increased from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018 from 30.5% to 42.4%. Overall prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in U.S. youth 2 to 19 years of age increased from 13.9% to 19.3% and 2.6% to 6.1% between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018.

Cholesterol

Close to 94 million (38.1%) U.S. adults have total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher, according to 2015–2018 data; about 28.0 million (11.5%) have total cholesterol of 240 mg/dL or higher; and 27.8% have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (130 mg/dL or higher).

Diabetes

In 2019, 87,647 U.S. deaths were attributed to diabetes; data show that 9.8 million U.S. adults have undiagnosed diabetes, 28.2 million have diagnosed diabetes, and 113.6 million have prediabetes.

Hypertension

A total of 121.5 million (47.3%) U.S. adults have hypertension, based on 2015–2018 data. In 2019, 102,072 U.S. deaths were primarily attributable to hypertension.

This statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Disclosures for the writing committee are listed with the original article.



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

The American Heart Association (AHA) draws attention to the important bidirectional link between cardiovascular health and brain health in its annual statistical update on heart disease and stroke.

“For several years now, the AHA and the scientific community have increasingly recognized the connections between cardiovascular health and brain health, so it was time for us to cement this into its own chapter, which we highlight as the brain health chapter,” Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, chair of the statistical update writing group, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an AHA podcast.

“The global rate of brain disease is quickly outpacing heart disease,” Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the AHA, added in a news release.

“The rate of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias rose more than twice as much in the past decade compared to the rate of deaths from heart disease, and that is something we must address,” said Dr. Elkind, with Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“It’s becoming more evident that reducing vascular disease risk factors can make a real difference in helping people live longer, healthier lives, free of heart disease and brain disease,” Dr. Elkind added.

The AHA’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2022 Update was published online January 26 in Circulation).

The report highlights some of the research connecting heart and brain health, including the following:

• A meta-analysis of 139 studies showed that people with midlife hypertension were five times more likely to experience impairment on global cognition and about twice as likely to experience reduced executive function, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• A meta-analysis of four longitudinal studies found that the risk for dementia associated with heart failure was increased nearly twofold.
• In the large prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Neurocognitive Study, atrial fibrillation was associated with greater cognitive decline and dementia over 20 years.
• A meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies (including 24,801 participants) showed that coronary heart disease (CHD) was associated with a 40% increased risk of poor cognitive outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, or cognitive decline.

“This new chapter on brain health was a critical one to add,” Dr. Tsao said in the news release.

“The data we’ve collected brings to light the strong correlations between heart health and brain health and makes it an easy story to tell -- what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Tsao added.

Along with the new chapter on brain health, the 2022 statistical update provides the latest statistics and heart disease and stroke. Among the highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In the United States in 2019, CVD, listed as the underlying cause of death, accounted for 874,613 deaths, about 2,396 deaths each day. On average, someone dies of CVD every 36 seconds.
• CVD claims more lives each year in the United States than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease combined.
• In 2019, CHD was the leading cause (41.3%) of deaths attributable to CVD, followed by other CVD (17.3%), stroke (17.2%), hypertension (11.7%), heart failure (9.9%), and diseases of the arteries (2.8%).
• In 2019, stroke accounted for roughly 1 in every 19 deaths in the United States. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds and someone dies of stroke every 3 minutes 30 seconds. When considered separately from other CVD, stroke ranks number five among all causes of death in the United States.

While the annual statistics update aims to be a contemporary update of annual heart disease and stroke statistics over the past year, it also examines trends over time, Dr. Tsao explains in the podcast.

“One noteworthy point is that we saw a decline in the rate of cardiovascular mortality over the past three decades or so until about 2010. But over the past decade now, we’re also seeing a rise in these numbers,” she said.

This could be due to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor hypertension control, as well as other lifestyle behaviors, Tsao said.
 

Key risk factor data

Each year, the statistical update gauges the cardiovascular health of Americans by tracking seven key health factors and behaviors that increase risk for heart disease and stroke. Below is a snapshot of the latest risk factor data.

Smoking

In 2019, smoking was the leading risk factor for years of life lost to premature death and the third leading risk factor for years of life lived with disability or injury.

According to the 2020 surgeon general’s report on smoking cessation, more than 480,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and more than 41,000 die of secondhand smoke exposure each year (roughly 1 in 5 deaths annually).

One in 7 adults are current smokers, 1 in 6 female adults are current smokers, and 1 in 5 high school students use e-cigarettes.
 

Physical inactivity

In 2018, 25.4% of U.S. adults did not engage in leisure-time physical activity, and only 24.0% met the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for both aerobic and muscle strengthening.

Among U.S. high school students in 2019, only 44.1% were physically active for 60 minutes or more on at least 5 days of the week.
 

Nutrition

While there is some evidence that Americans are improving their diet, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met guidelines for whole grain, whole fruit, and nonstarchy vegetable consumption each day in 2017–2018.

Overweight/obesity

The prevalence of obesity among adults increased from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018 from 30.5% to 42.4%. Overall prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in U.S. youth 2 to 19 years of age increased from 13.9% to 19.3% and 2.6% to 6.1% between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018.

Cholesterol

Close to 94 million (38.1%) U.S. adults have total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher, according to 2015–2018 data; about 28.0 million (11.5%) have total cholesterol of 240 mg/dL or higher; and 27.8% have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (130 mg/dL or higher).

Diabetes

In 2019, 87,647 U.S. deaths were attributed to diabetes; data show that 9.8 million U.S. adults have undiagnosed diabetes, 28.2 million have diagnosed diabetes, and 113.6 million have prediabetes.

Hypertension

A total of 121.5 million (47.3%) U.S. adults have hypertension, based on 2015–2018 data. In 2019, 102,072 U.S. deaths were primarily attributable to hypertension.

This statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Disclosures for the writing committee are listed with the original article.



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

The increase in cardiovascular disease caused by chronic stress is related to biologic mechanisms (metabolic, hormonal, inflammatory) and to behavioral mechanisms (lifestyle). There is a popular saying that “stress speeds up aging,” which makes sense if we consider the age-old idea that “our age corresponds to that of our arteries.”

The study of the mechanisms of psychosocial risk factors is of major relevance to the creation of the individual and communal preventive strategies that ensure longevity and maintain quality of life.

The following hypotheses were proposed by a group of researchers from Yale University, in New Haven, Conn., in a recent study:

1. Stress is positively associated with accelerated biologic aging, and this relationship will be mediated by stress-related physiologic changes, such as insulin and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) signaling.

2. Strong factors associated with psychologic resilience will be protective against the negative consequences of stress on aging. (These relationships are predictive, not causative, as this study is cross-sectional.)
 

The study

In their study, the team assessed 444 adults with no chronic medical conditions or psychiatric disorders who were 18-50 years of age and living in the greater New Haven area. Levels of obesity and alcohol consumption in the study cohort were generally in line with those in a community population, so alcohol use and body mass index were used as covariates to account for their impact on the results.

The team also used the latest “epigenetic clock,” known as GrimAge. In recent years, several methods of determining biologic age have been developed that trace chemical changes in the DNA that are natural to the aging process but occur at different moments in different people. The epigenetic clocks have proved to be better predictors of longevity and health than chronologic age, and GrimAge predicts mortality better than other epigenetic clocks.
 

Results

1. Cumulative stress was associated with the acceleration of GrimAge and stress-related physiologic measures of adrenal sensitivity (cortisol/ACTH ratio) and insulin resistance (HOMA). After the researchers controlled for demographic and behavioral factors, HOMA was correlated with GrimAge acceleration.

2. Psychologic resilience factors moderated the association between stress and aging, such that with worse regulation of emotions, there was greater stress-related age acceleration, and with stronger regulation of emotions, any significant effect of stress on GrimAge was prevented. Self-control moderated the relationship between stress and insulin resistance, with high self-control blunting this relationship.

3. In the final model, in those with poor emotion regulation, cumulative stress continued to predict additional GrimAge acceleration, even when demographic, physiologic, and behavioral covariates were accounted for.
 

Implications

These results elegantly demonstrate that cumulative stress is associated with epigenetic aging in a healthy population, and these associations are modified by biobehavioral resilience factors.

Even after adjustment for demographic and behavioral factors – such as smoking, body mass index, race, and income – people with high chronic stress scores showed markers of accelerated aging and physiologic changes, such as increased insulin resistance.

However, individuals with high scores on two psychologic resilience measures – emotion regulation and self-control – were more resilient to the effects of stress on aging and insulin resistance.

These results support the popular notion that stress ages (and sickens) us, and suggest a viable way of minimizing the adverse consequences of stress by strengthening the regulation of emotion and self-control.

In other words, the greater the psychologic resilience, the more likely the individual is to live a long and healthy life. “We like to feel as if we have some sovereignty over our destiny and, therefore, it is worth emphasizing to people (and healthcare providers) that it is important to invest in mental health,” said one of the study researchers.

With all the stress we face these days, it is essential to remember that there is no health without mental health. Above all, if we can achieve greater psychologic resilience, we will have a better chance of delaying aging.

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

The increase in cardiovascular disease caused by chronic stress is related to biologic mechanisms (metabolic, hormonal, inflammatory) and to behavioral mechanisms (lifestyle). There is a popular saying that “stress speeds up aging,” which makes sense if we consider the age-old idea that “our age corresponds to that of our arteries.”

The study of the mechanisms of psychosocial risk factors is of major relevance to the creation of the individual and communal preventive strategies that ensure longevity and maintain quality of life.

The following hypotheses were proposed by a group of researchers from Yale University, in New Haven, Conn., in a recent study:

1. Stress is positively associated with accelerated biologic aging, and this relationship will be mediated by stress-related physiologic changes, such as insulin and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) signaling.

2. Strong factors associated with psychologic resilience will be protective against the negative consequences of stress on aging. (These relationships are predictive, not causative, as this study is cross-sectional.)
 

The study

In their study, the team assessed 444 adults with no chronic medical conditions or psychiatric disorders who were 18-50 years of age and living in the greater New Haven area. Levels of obesity and alcohol consumption in the study cohort were generally in line with those in a community population, so alcohol use and body mass index were used as covariates to account for their impact on the results.

The team also used the latest “epigenetic clock,” known as GrimAge. In recent years, several methods of determining biologic age have been developed that trace chemical changes in the DNA that are natural to the aging process but occur at different moments in different people. The epigenetic clocks have proved to be better predictors of longevity and health than chronologic age, and GrimAge predicts mortality better than other epigenetic clocks.
 

Results

1. Cumulative stress was associated with the acceleration of GrimAge and stress-related physiologic measures of adrenal sensitivity (cortisol/ACTH ratio) and insulin resistance (HOMA). After the researchers controlled for demographic and behavioral factors, HOMA was correlated with GrimAge acceleration.

2. Psychologic resilience factors moderated the association between stress and aging, such that with worse regulation of emotions, there was greater stress-related age acceleration, and with stronger regulation of emotions, any significant effect of stress on GrimAge was prevented. Self-control moderated the relationship between stress and insulin resistance, with high self-control blunting this relationship.

3. In the final model, in those with poor emotion regulation, cumulative stress continued to predict additional GrimAge acceleration, even when demographic, physiologic, and behavioral covariates were accounted for.
 

Implications

These results elegantly demonstrate that cumulative stress is associated with epigenetic aging in a healthy population, and these associations are modified by biobehavioral resilience factors.

Even after adjustment for demographic and behavioral factors – such as smoking, body mass index, race, and income – people with high chronic stress scores showed markers of accelerated aging and physiologic changes, such as increased insulin resistance.

However, individuals with high scores on two psychologic resilience measures – emotion regulation and self-control – were more resilient to the effects of stress on aging and insulin resistance.

These results support the popular notion that stress ages (and sickens) us, and suggest a viable way of minimizing the adverse consequences of stress by strengthening the regulation of emotion and self-control.

In other words, the greater the psychologic resilience, the more likely the individual is to live a long and healthy life. “We like to feel as if we have some sovereignty over our destiny and, therefore, it is worth emphasizing to people (and healthcare providers) that it is important to invest in mental health,” said one of the study researchers.

With all the stress we face these days, it is essential to remember that there is no health without mental health. Above all, if we can achieve greater psychologic resilience, we will have a better chance of delaying aging.

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

The increase in cardiovascular disease caused by chronic stress is related to biologic mechanisms (metabolic, hormonal, inflammatory) and to behavioral mechanisms (lifestyle). There is a popular saying that “stress speeds up aging,” which makes sense if we consider the age-old idea that “our age corresponds to that of our arteries.”

The study of the mechanisms of psychosocial risk factors is of major relevance to the creation of the individual and communal preventive strategies that ensure longevity and maintain quality of life.

The following hypotheses were proposed by a group of researchers from Yale University, in New Haven, Conn., in a recent study:

1. Stress is positively associated with accelerated biologic aging, and this relationship will be mediated by stress-related physiologic changes, such as insulin and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) signaling.

2. Strong factors associated with psychologic resilience will be protective against the negative consequences of stress on aging. (These relationships are predictive, not causative, as this study is cross-sectional.)
 

The study

In their study, the team assessed 444 adults with no chronic medical conditions or psychiatric disorders who were 18-50 years of age and living in the greater New Haven area. Levels of obesity and alcohol consumption in the study cohort were generally in line with those in a community population, so alcohol use and body mass index were used as covariates to account for their impact on the results.

The team also used the latest “epigenetic clock,” known as GrimAge. In recent years, several methods of determining biologic age have been developed that trace chemical changes in the DNA that are natural to the aging process but occur at different moments in different people. The epigenetic clocks have proved to be better predictors of longevity and health than chronologic age, and GrimAge predicts mortality better than other epigenetic clocks.
 

Results

1. Cumulative stress was associated with the acceleration of GrimAge and stress-related physiologic measures of adrenal sensitivity (cortisol/ACTH ratio) and insulin resistance (HOMA). After the researchers controlled for demographic and behavioral factors, HOMA was correlated with GrimAge acceleration.

2. Psychologic resilience factors moderated the association between stress and aging, such that with worse regulation of emotions, there was greater stress-related age acceleration, and with stronger regulation of emotions, any significant effect of stress on GrimAge was prevented. Self-control moderated the relationship between stress and insulin resistance, with high self-control blunting this relationship.

3. In the final model, in those with poor emotion regulation, cumulative stress continued to predict additional GrimAge acceleration, even when demographic, physiologic, and behavioral covariates were accounted for.
 

Implications

These results elegantly demonstrate that cumulative stress is associated with epigenetic aging in a healthy population, and these associations are modified by biobehavioral resilience factors.

Even after adjustment for demographic and behavioral factors – such as smoking, body mass index, race, and income – people with high chronic stress scores showed markers of accelerated aging and physiologic changes, such as increased insulin resistance.

However, individuals with high scores on two psychologic resilience measures – emotion regulation and self-control – were more resilient to the effects of stress on aging and insulin resistance.

These results support the popular notion that stress ages (and sickens) us, and suggest a viable way of minimizing the adverse consequences of stress by strengthening the regulation of emotion and self-control.

In other words, the greater the psychologic resilience, the more likely the individual is to live a long and healthy life. “We like to feel as if we have some sovereignty over our destiny and, therefore, it is worth emphasizing to people (and healthcare providers) that it is important to invest in mental health,” said one of the study researchers.

With all the stress we face these days, it is essential to remember that there is no health without mental health. Above all, if we can achieve greater psychologic resilience, we will have a better chance of delaying aging.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Lifestyle is more likely to affect a child’s body mass index than the weight of their mother before and during pregnancy say researchers who have found that a mother’s high BMI before and during pregnancy is not a major cause of high BMI in their offspring – indicating that childhood and teen obesity is more likely to be a result of lifestyle factors.

According to UK Government figures 9.9% of reception age children (age 4-5) are obese, with a further 13.1% overweight. At age 10-11 (year 6), 21.0% are obese and 14.1% overweight.

Research from the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) at the UCL Social Research Institute, published in December 2020, showed that one in five (21%) young people were obese at age 17, and a further one in seven (14%) were overweight.
 

Nature or nurture

Greater maternal BMI before or during pregnancy is known to be associated with higher BMI throughout childhood, but exactly how much a mother’s weight before or during pregnancy contributes to childhood obesity, or whether it is lifestyle and environmental factors that are responsible, remains unclear.

To investigate this question researchers from the University of Bristol (England) and Imperial College London used data from the “Children of the 90s” (also known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), and data from the “Born in Bradford” longitudinal study.

For their study, published in BMC Medicine, researchers used Mendelian randomisation, measuring variation in genes to determine the effect of an exposure on an outcome, along with polygenic risk scores, to investigate if associations between before and during early pregnancy BMI, and a child’s BMI from birth to adolescence, are causal.

They looked at birth weight and BMI at age 1 and 4 years in both “Children of the 90s” and “Born in Bradford” participants, and then also BMI at age 10 and 15 years in just the Children of the 90s participants.

Since the effects being explored may differ by ethnicity the authors reported that they limited analyses to two ethnic groups – White European and South Asian.
 

Interventions targeting everyone needed

The researchers found that there was a moderate causal effect between maternal BMI and the birth weight of children, however they said they “found no strong evidence for a causal effect of maternal BMI on offspring adiposity beyond birth”.

Tom Bond, MSc, senior research associate at the University of Bristol, explained: “We found that if women are heavier at the start of pregnancy this isn’t a strong cause of their children being heavier as teenagers.”

The authors wrote that their results suggested that “higher maternal pre-/early-pregnancy BMI is not a key driver of higher adiposity in the next generation,” something that Mr. Bond said was “important to know”.

The authors concluded that their findings “support interventions that target the whole population for reducing overweight and obesity, rather than a specific focus on women of reproductive age”.

Mr. Bond pointed out that “it isn’t enough to just focus on women entering pregnancy.” However, “there is good evidence that maternal obesity causes other health problems for mothers and babies, so prospective mothers should still be encouraged and supported to maintain a healthy weight.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Lifestyle is more likely to affect a child’s body mass index than the weight of their mother before and during pregnancy say researchers who have found that a mother’s high BMI before and during pregnancy is not a major cause of high BMI in their offspring – indicating that childhood and teen obesity is more likely to be a result of lifestyle factors.

According to UK Government figures 9.9% of reception age children (age 4-5) are obese, with a further 13.1% overweight. At age 10-11 (year 6), 21.0% are obese and 14.1% overweight.

Research from the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) at the UCL Social Research Institute, published in December 2020, showed that one in five (21%) young people were obese at age 17, and a further one in seven (14%) were overweight.
 

Nature or nurture

Greater maternal BMI before or during pregnancy is known to be associated with higher BMI throughout childhood, but exactly how much a mother’s weight before or during pregnancy contributes to childhood obesity, or whether it is lifestyle and environmental factors that are responsible, remains unclear.

To investigate this question researchers from the University of Bristol (England) and Imperial College London used data from the “Children of the 90s” (also known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), and data from the “Born in Bradford” longitudinal study.

For their study, published in BMC Medicine, researchers used Mendelian randomisation, measuring variation in genes to determine the effect of an exposure on an outcome, along with polygenic risk scores, to investigate if associations between before and during early pregnancy BMI, and a child’s BMI from birth to adolescence, are causal.

They looked at birth weight and BMI at age 1 and 4 years in both “Children of the 90s” and “Born in Bradford” participants, and then also BMI at age 10 and 15 years in just the Children of the 90s participants.

Since the effects being explored may differ by ethnicity the authors reported that they limited analyses to two ethnic groups – White European and South Asian.
 

Interventions targeting everyone needed

The researchers found that there was a moderate causal effect between maternal BMI and the birth weight of children, however they said they “found no strong evidence for a causal effect of maternal BMI on offspring adiposity beyond birth”.

Tom Bond, MSc, senior research associate at the University of Bristol, explained: “We found that if women are heavier at the start of pregnancy this isn’t a strong cause of their children being heavier as teenagers.”

The authors wrote that their results suggested that “higher maternal pre-/early-pregnancy BMI is not a key driver of higher adiposity in the next generation,” something that Mr. Bond said was “important to know”.

The authors concluded that their findings “support interventions that target the whole population for reducing overweight and obesity, rather than a specific focus on women of reproductive age”.

Mr. Bond pointed out that “it isn’t enough to just focus on women entering pregnancy.” However, “there is good evidence that maternal obesity causes other health problems for mothers and babies, so prospective mothers should still be encouraged and supported to maintain a healthy weight.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Lifestyle is more likely to affect a child’s body mass index than the weight of their mother before and during pregnancy say researchers who have found that a mother’s high BMI before and during pregnancy is not a major cause of high BMI in their offspring – indicating that childhood and teen obesity is more likely to be a result of lifestyle factors.

According to UK Government figures 9.9% of reception age children (age 4-5) are obese, with a further 13.1% overweight. At age 10-11 (year 6), 21.0% are obese and 14.1% overweight.

Research from the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) at the UCL Social Research Institute, published in December 2020, showed that one in five (21%) young people were obese at age 17, and a further one in seven (14%) were overweight.
 

Nature or nurture

Greater maternal BMI before or during pregnancy is known to be associated with higher BMI throughout childhood, but exactly how much a mother’s weight before or during pregnancy contributes to childhood obesity, or whether it is lifestyle and environmental factors that are responsible, remains unclear.

To investigate this question researchers from the University of Bristol (England) and Imperial College London used data from the “Children of the 90s” (also known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), and data from the “Born in Bradford” longitudinal study.

For their study, published in BMC Medicine, researchers used Mendelian randomisation, measuring variation in genes to determine the effect of an exposure on an outcome, along with polygenic risk scores, to investigate if associations between before and during early pregnancy BMI, and a child’s BMI from birth to adolescence, are causal.

They looked at birth weight and BMI at age 1 and 4 years in both “Children of the 90s” and “Born in Bradford” participants, and then also BMI at age 10 and 15 years in just the Children of the 90s participants.

Since the effects being explored may differ by ethnicity the authors reported that they limited analyses to two ethnic groups – White European and South Asian.
 

Interventions targeting everyone needed

The researchers found that there was a moderate causal effect between maternal BMI and the birth weight of children, however they said they “found no strong evidence for a causal effect of maternal BMI on offspring adiposity beyond birth”.

Tom Bond, MSc, senior research associate at the University of Bristol, explained: “We found that if women are heavier at the start of pregnancy this isn’t a strong cause of their children being heavier as teenagers.”

The authors wrote that their results suggested that “higher maternal pre-/early-pregnancy BMI is not a key driver of higher adiposity in the next generation,” something that Mr. Bond said was “important to know”.

The authors concluded that their findings “support interventions that target the whole population for reducing overweight and obesity, rather than a specific focus on women of reproductive age”.

Mr. Bond pointed out that “it isn’t enough to just focus on women entering pregnancy.” However, “there is good evidence that maternal obesity causes other health problems for mothers and babies, so prospective mothers should still be encouraged and supported to maintain a healthy weight.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than forty percent (42%) of primary care providers (PCPs) say they have been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Primary Care Physician Malpractice Report 2021. This figure is less than the overall proportion of physicians in all specialties named in a malpractice suit (51%).

More PCPs were part of lawsuits that named multiple parties (34%) than suits that named a individual practitioners (11%). Failure to make a proper diagnosis (41%) was the most common claim in malpractice suits against PCPs, followed by poor outcome/disease progression (26%), complications from treatment/surgery (17%), wrongful death (16%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

The report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21, 2021, to August 28, 2021, and included 732 family and internal medicine physicians. Most respondents had practiced medicine for more than 25 years (47%) or from 21-25 years (16%). Almost half of respondents (47%) were aged 60 years or older.

Most PCPs (63%) reported malpractice insurance premiums of less than $20,000 per year, which is more than the overall proportion for all specialists (52%). The typical premium for PCPs was $5,000-$9,999 (26%). Premium payments varied widely by geographic area, with a PCP in New York paying five times as much as a colleague in California, Tennessee, or Ohio would pay to obtain comparable coverage, the survey found.

More than 9 in 10 PCPs (91%) reported being “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” to having been part of a malpractice suit and reported being upset and anxious: “Feeling betrayed by people to whom I had provided good care, and embarrassed that my colleagues might find out,” as one internist put it. The majority (84%) of PCPs said their lawsuits were unwarranted, in line with perceptions among all specialists (83%).

The largest proportions of cases were settled before trial (35%) or were dismissed within a few months of lawsuit filing (16%). A judge or jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor only 2% of the time. Seven percent of cases are ongoing, and 3% were settled at trial, according to the survey.

The largest number of cases (40%) took between 1 and 2 years, although 30% were less than a year. Roughly one in four cases (24%) lasted 3-5 years. Almost half (47%) of any monetary payments to plaintiffs were $100,000 or less; one-third of such payments were capped at $500,000.

Two-thirds (68%) of PCPs said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their careers, and more than one in four (28%) said they now no longer trust patients or that they treat them differently. This change in trust is slightly higher than for specialists overall (24%).

More than 4 in 10 PCPs (41%) said they would have done nothing differently despite being sued. The largest proportion of changes other PCPs would have made included improved documentation (18%) and ordering additional tests as a hedge against a lawsuit (11%); 10% said they should never have taken on the patient in the first place.

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

More than forty percent (42%) of primary care providers (PCPs) say they have been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Primary Care Physician Malpractice Report 2021. This figure is less than the overall proportion of physicians in all specialties named in a malpractice suit (51%).

More PCPs were part of lawsuits that named multiple parties (34%) than suits that named a individual practitioners (11%). Failure to make a proper diagnosis (41%) was the most common claim in malpractice suits against PCPs, followed by poor outcome/disease progression (26%), complications from treatment/surgery (17%), wrongful death (16%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

The report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21, 2021, to August 28, 2021, and included 732 family and internal medicine physicians. Most respondents had practiced medicine for more than 25 years (47%) or from 21-25 years (16%). Almost half of respondents (47%) were aged 60 years or older.

Most PCPs (63%) reported malpractice insurance premiums of less than $20,000 per year, which is more than the overall proportion for all specialists (52%). The typical premium for PCPs was $5,000-$9,999 (26%). Premium payments varied widely by geographic area, with a PCP in New York paying five times as much as a colleague in California, Tennessee, or Ohio would pay to obtain comparable coverage, the survey found.

More than 9 in 10 PCPs (91%) reported being “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” to having been part of a malpractice suit and reported being upset and anxious: “Feeling betrayed by people to whom I had provided good care, and embarrassed that my colleagues might find out,” as one internist put it. The majority (84%) of PCPs said their lawsuits were unwarranted, in line with perceptions among all specialists (83%).

The largest proportions of cases were settled before trial (35%) or were dismissed within a few months of lawsuit filing (16%). A judge or jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor only 2% of the time. Seven percent of cases are ongoing, and 3% were settled at trial, according to the survey.

The largest number of cases (40%) took between 1 and 2 years, although 30% were less than a year. Roughly one in four cases (24%) lasted 3-5 years. Almost half (47%) of any monetary payments to plaintiffs were $100,000 or less; one-third of such payments were capped at $500,000.

Two-thirds (68%) of PCPs said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their careers, and more than one in four (28%) said they now no longer trust patients or that they treat them differently. This change in trust is slightly higher than for specialists overall (24%).

More than 4 in 10 PCPs (41%) said they would have done nothing differently despite being sued. The largest proportion of changes other PCPs would have made included improved documentation (18%) and ordering additional tests as a hedge against a lawsuit (11%); 10% said they should never have taken on the patient in the first place.

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

More than forty percent (42%) of primary care providers (PCPs) say they have been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Primary Care Physician Malpractice Report 2021. This figure is less than the overall proportion of physicians in all specialties named in a malpractice suit (51%).

More PCPs were part of lawsuits that named multiple parties (34%) than suits that named a individual practitioners (11%). Failure to make a proper diagnosis (41%) was the most common claim in malpractice suits against PCPs, followed by poor outcome/disease progression (26%), complications from treatment/surgery (17%), wrongful death (16%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

The report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21, 2021, to August 28, 2021, and included 732 family and internal medicine physicians. Most respondents had practiced medicine for more than 25 years (47%) or from 21-25 years (16%). Almost half of respondents (47%) were aged 60 years or older.

Most PCPs (63%) reported malpractice insurance premiums of less than $20,000 per year, which is more than the overall proportion for all specialists (52%). The typical premium for PCPs was $5,000-$9,999 (26%). Premium payments varied widely by geographic area, with a PCP in New York paying five times as much as a colleague in California, Tennessee, or Ohio would pay to obtain comparable coverage, the survey found.

More than 9 in 10 PCPs (91%) reported being “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” to having been part of a malpractice suit and reported being upset and anxious: “Feeling betrayed by people to whom I had provided good care, and embarrassed that my colleagues might find out,” as one internist put it. The majority (84%) of PCPs said their lawsuits were unwarranted, in line with perceptions among all specialists (83%).

The largest proportions of cases were settled before trial (35%) or were dismissed within a few months of lawsuit filing (16%). A judge or jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor only 2% of the time. Seven percent of cases are ongoing, and 3% were settled at trial, according to the survey.

The largest number of cases (40%) took between 1 and 2 years, although 30% were less than a year. Roughly one in four cases (24%) lasted 3-5 years. Almost half (47%) of any monetary payments to plaintiffs were $100,000 or less; one-third of such payments were capped at $500,000.

Two-thirds (68%) of PCPs said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their careers, and more than one in four (28%) said they now no longer trust patients or that they treat them differently. This change in trust is slightly higher than for specialists overall (24%).

More than 4 in 10 PCPs (41%) said they would have done nothing differently despite being sued. The largest proportion of changes other PCPs would have made included improved documentation (18%) and ordering additional tests as a hedge against a lawsuit (11%); 10% said they should never have taken on the patient in the first place.

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

In the United States, mortality rates are high and increasing among working-age adults, and “deaths of despair” from suicide, alcohol poisoning, and drug overdose are key contributors.

This is not the case in 16 other industrialized nations, however, including Canada, Australia, and Japan, where mortality rates are actually decreasing.

One likely reason is that other countries take better care of their citizens from cradle to grave, authors Peter Sterling, PhD, and Michael Platt, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in a special communication in JAMA Psychiatry published online Feb. 2.

In the United States, individuals and families often struggle in isolation to navigate the life cycle, whereas other countries offer communal assistance to every life stage, and this support protects individuals and families in the long term, they noted.

The United States could solve this “health crisis” by adopting the best practices of these other nations, they wrote.
 

U.S. is an outlier

From an anthropological perspective, Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt point out that “hunter-gatherers” prioritized food, comfort, and companionship. When one of these needs is unexpectedly met, the surprise triggers a pulse of the feel-good hormone dopamine.

However, much of modern life offers few opportunities for surprise and dopamine pulses.

“It is the difference between a day’s hard walk to finally encounter and kill a wild pig to feed the family and community versus a quick trip to aisle 7 to select a pork roast in plastic wrap,” Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt noted.

The hunter-gatherers were far more physically active, and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and hypertension were virtually unknown.

The small-scale societies of hunters and gatherers depended on strong family bonds and cooperation with community members.

Modern life is more isolating, often with hours spent alone in front of a computer screen.

Yet the lack of natural dopamine producers in modern society and the increased social isolation is not unique to the United States but holds across the board for industrialized nations.

So why has the United States suffered more deaths of despair?

Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt assert that it comes down to public support other countries provide their citizens across the life span, from prenatal care and quality preschool and elementary school to affordable (or free) education beyond high school.

This support did not require “bloody revolutions, just simple agreements to prepay basic human needs from public funds collected as taxes,” Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt noted.

By adopting some of the best practices pioneered by other wealthy nations, the United States could reduce despair and restore to many the will to live, they added.

However, they caution against the “medicalization” of every identified cause of rising death rates.

“Every symptom of despair has been defined as a disorder or dysregulation within the individual. This incorrectly frames the problem, forcing individuals to grapple on their own,” they wrote.

“It also emphasizes treatment by pharmacology, providing innumerable drugs for anxiety, depression, anger, psychosis, and obesity, plus new drugs to treat addictions to the old drugs. We cannot defeat despair solely with pills – to the contrary, pills will only deepen it,” they added.

Dr. Platt reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Charles E. Kaufman Foundation. He is cofounder of Cogwear and a scientific adviser to Neuroflow, Amplio, Blue Horizon International, and Progenity. Dr. Sterling has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the United States, mortality rates are high and increasing among working-age adults, and “deaths of despair” from suicide, alcohol poisoning, and drug overdose are key contributors.

This is not the case in 16 other industrialized nations, however, including Canada, Australia, and Japan, where mortality rates are actually decreasing.

One likely reason is that other countries take better care of their citizens from cradle to grave, authors Peter Sterling, PhD, and Michael Platt, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in a special communication in JAMA Psychiatry published online Feb. 2.

In the United States, individuals and families often struggle in isolation to navigate the life cycle, whereas other countries offer communal assistance to every life stage, and this support protects individuals and families in the long term, they noted.

The United States could solve this “health crisis” by adopting the best practices of these other nations, they wrote.
 

U.S. is an outlier

From an anthropological perspective, Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt point out that “hunter-gatherers” prioritized food, comfort, and companionship. When one of these needs is unexpectedly met, the surprise triggers a pulse of the feel-good hormone dopamine.

However, much of modern life offers few opportunities for surprise and dopamine pulses.

“It is the difference between a day’s hard walk to finally encounter and kill a wild pig to feed the family and community versus a quick trip to aisle 7 to select a pork roast in plastic wrap,” Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt noted.

The hunter-gatherers were far more physically active, and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and hypertension were virtually unknown.

The small-scale societies of hunters and gatherers depended on strong family bonds and cooperation with community members.

Modern life is more isolating, often with hours spent alone in front of a computer screen.

Yet the lack of natural dopamine producers in modern society and the increased social isolation is not unique to the United States but holds across the board for industrialized nations.

So why has the United States suffered more deaths of despair?

Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt assert that it comes down to public support other countries provide their citizens across the life span, from prenatal care and quality preschool and elementary school to affordable (or free) education beyond high school.

This support did not require “bloody revolutions, just simple agreements to prepay basic human needs from public funds collected as taxes,” Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt noted.

By adopting some of the best practices pioneered by other wealthy nations, the United States could reduce despair and restore to many the will to live, they added.

However, they caution against the “medicalization” of every identified cause of rising death rates.

“Every symptom of despair has been defined as a disorder or dysregulation within the individual. This incorrectly frames the problem, forcing individuals to grapple on their own,” they wrote.

“It also emphasizes treatment by pharmacology, providing innumerable drugs for anxiety, depression, anger, psychosis, and obesity, plus new drugs to treat addictions to the old drugs. We cannot defeat despair solely with pills – to the contrary, pills will only deepen it,” they added.

Dr. Platt reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Charles E. Kaufman Foundation. He is cofounder of Cogwear and a scientific adviser to Neuroflow, Amplio, Blue Horizon International, and Progenity. Dr. Sterling has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the United States, mortality rates are high and increasing among working-age adults, and “deaths of despair” from suicide, alcohol poisoning, and drug overdose are key contributors.

This is not the case in 16 other industrialized nations, however, including Canada, Australia, and Japan, where mortality rates are actually decreasing.

One likely reason is that other countries take better care of their citizens from cradle to grave, authors Peter Sterling, PhD, and Michael Platt, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in a special communication in JAMA Psychiatry published online Feb. 2.

In the United States, individuals and families often struggle in isolation to navigate the life cycle, whereas other countries offer communal assistance to every life stage, and this support protects individuals and families in the long term, they noted.

The United States could solve this “health crisis” by adopting the best practices of these other nations, they wrote.
 

U.S. is an outlier

From an anthropological perspective, Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt point out that “hunter-gatherers” prioritized food, comfort, and companionship. When one of these needs is unexpectedly met, the surprise triggers a pulse of the feel-good hormone dopamine.

However, much of modern life offers few opportunities for surprise and dopamine pulses.

“It is the difference between a day’s hard walk to finally encounter and kill a wild pig to feed the family and community versus a quick trip to aisle 7 to select a pork roast in plastic wrap,” Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt noted.

The hunter-gatherers were far more physically active, and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and hypertension were virtually unknown.

The small-scale societies of hunters and gatherers depended on strong family bonds and cooperation with community members.

Modern life is more isolating, often with hours spent alone in front of a computer screen.

Yet the lack of natural dopamine producers in modern society and the increased social isolation is not unique to the United States but holds across the board for industrialized nations.

So why has the United States suffered more deaths of despair?

Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt assert that it comes down to public support other countries provide their citizens across the life span, from prenatal care and quality preschool and elementary school to affordable (or free) education beyond high school.

This support did not require “bloody revolutions, just simple agreements to prepay basic human needs from public funds collected as taxes,” Dr. Sterling and Dr. Platt noted.

By adopting some of the best practices pioneered by other wealthy nations, the United States could reduce despair and restore to many the will to live, they added.

However, they caution against the “medicalization” of every identified cause of rising death rates.

“Every symptom of despair has been defined as a disorder or dysregulation within the individual. This incorrectly frames the problem, forcing individuals to grapple on their own,” they wrote.

“It also emphasizes treatment by pharmacology, providing innumerable drugs for anxiety, depression, anger, psychosis, and obesity, plus new drugs to treat addictions to the old drugs. We cannot defeat despair solely with pills – to the contrary, pills will only deepen it,” they added.

Dr. Platt reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Charles E. Kaufman Foundation. He is cofounder of Cogwear and a scientific adviser to Neuroflow, Amplio, Blue Horizon International, and Progenity. Dr. Sterling has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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