Pediatric News

CHICAGO – Higher weight and body mass index (BMI) in preadolescents are linked with poor brain health, new research suggests.

Poor brain health has been linked with obesity in adults, but little has been known about the link in children.

Lead author Simone Kaltenhauser, a postgraduate research fellow in radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., presented her findings at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

To represent the national sociodemographic makeup, the researchers used baseline information from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, which included 11,878 children aged 9 and 10 years from 21 centers across the United States.

This study included 5,169 children (51.9% girls). Children who had had traumatic brain injury, eating disorders, neurodevelopmental problems, and psychiatric diseases were excluded from the final analysis.

The researchers analyzed information from structural MRI and resting-state functional MRI, which allowed them to measure brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow.

“We analyzed the average fractional anisotropy (FA), mean (MD), axial (AD) and radial diffusivity (RD), and neurite density (ND) of 35 white matter (WM) tracts; cortical thickness and surface of 68 regions; and functional connectivity of 91 predefined network correlations,” the authors explained.

They adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, handedness, and socioeconomic status. They used linear models to determine associations between weight and BMI z-scores and the imaging metrics.
 

Loss of white matter integrity

Among children with obesity, there was pervasive loss of white matter integrity and neurite density, cortical gray matter thinning, and decreased connectivity within and between networks that have been associated with impulse control and reward-based decision-making.

“These changes persisted in a similar pattern also 2 years later,” she said.

A member of the audience asked whether a reverse relationship might be at work – that poor brain health might drive obesity rather than the other way around.

Ms. Kaltenhauser agreed that other factors could be driving the link and acknowledged as a limitation that they did not have access to genetic information on the children.

Information on the effects of overweight and obesity is critical, especially in the United States, where an estimated 1 in 5 children are obese.

Ms. Kaltenhauser said she hopes her study raises awareness of potential brain health consequences as well as the physical consequences of childhood obesity.

Senior author Sam Payabvash, MD, a neuroradiologist and assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine, said in a press release that the study may help explain the findings from previous studies that show an association between higher BMI in children and poor cognitive functioning and academic performance.

“The longitudinal ABCD study gives us the opportunity to observe any changes that occur in children with higher weight and BMI z-scores,” Dr. Payabvash said. “We’ll need to watch over the next 6-10 years.”
 

Avenues for future research

Amit B. Desai, MD, a neuroradiologist with Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not part of the study, said that while the research demonstrates an association between brain structure and BMI and obesity, “there may be other lurking variables.”

“What’s happening at an earlier stage in life could be causing both,” he said.

He noted that he would like to see future studies involving children at even earlier ages, along with investigations of the role of genetics or socioeconomic factors.

Including older children would be interesting as well, he said.

“Myelination doesn’t complete until you’re in your late teens or early 20s, so there are structural changes happening in the brain much later on into adolescence and early adulthood,” Dr. Desai said.

It would be premature, he said, to conclude from these findings that if children have obesity, there must be something wrong with their brain.

He would like to see whether there are changes in this link if a child is obese early on and later has normal weight or if a child has normal weight early and then becomes obese.

“It’s definitely an eye-opening study, but [it] needs additional work to expand upon it,” he said.

Ms. Kaltenhauser and Dr. Desai report no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Higher weight and body mass index (BMI) in preadolescents are linked with poor brain health, new research suggests.

Poor brain health has been linked with obesity in adults, but little has been known about the link in children.

Lead author Simone Kaltenhauser, a postgraduate research fellow in radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., presented her findings at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

To represent the national sociodemographic makeup, the researchers used baseline information from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, which included 11,878 children aged 9 and 10 years from 21 centers across the United States.

This study included 5,169 children (51.9% girls). Children who had had traumatic brain injury, eating disorders, neurodevelopmental problems, and psychiatric diseases were excluded from the final analysis.

The researchers analyzed information from structural MRI and resting-state functional MRI, which allowed them to measure brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow.

“We analyzed the average fractional anisotropy (FA), mean (MD), axial (AD) and radial diffusivity (RD), and neurite density (ND) of 35 white matter (WM) tracts; cortical thickness and surface of 68 regions; and functional connectivity of 91 predefined network correlations,” the authors explained.

They adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, handedness, and socioeconomic status. They used linear models to determine associations between weight and BMI z-scores and the imaging metrics.
 

Loss of white matter integrity

Among children with obesity, there was pervasive loss of white matter integrity and neurite density, cortical gray matter thinning, and decreased connectivity within and between networks that have been associated with impulse control and reward-based decision-making.

“These changes persisted in a similar pattern also 2 years later,” she said.

A member of the audience asked whether a reverse relationship might be at work – that poor brain health might drive obesity rather than the other way around.

Ms. Kaltenhauser agreed that other factors could be driving the link and acknowledged as a limitation that they did not have access to genetic information on the children.

Information on the effects of overweight and obesity is critical, especially in the United States, where an estimated 1 in 5 children are obese.

Ms. Kaltenhauser said she hopes her study raises awareness of potential brain health consequences as well as the physical consequences of childhood obesity.

Senior author Sam Payabvash, MD, a neuroradiologist and assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine, said in a press release that the study may help explain the findings from previous studies that show an association between higher BMI in children and poor cognitive functioning and academic performance.

“The longitudinal ABCD study gives us the opportunity to observe any changes that occur in children with higher weight and BMI z-scores,” Dr. Payabvash said. “We’ll need to watch over the next 6-10 years.”
 

Avenues for future research

Amit B. Desai, MD, a neuroradiologist with Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not part of the study, said that while the research demonstrates an association between brain structure and BMI and obesity, “there may be other lurking variables.”

“What’s happening at an earlier stage in life could be causing both,” he said.

He noted that he would like to see future studies involving children at even earlier ages, along with investigations of the role of genetics or socioeconomic factors.

Including older children would be interesting as well, he said.

“Myelination doesn’t complete until you’re in your late teens or early 20s, so there are structural changes happening in the brain much later on into adolescence and early adulthood,” Dr. Desai said.

It would be premature, he said, to conclude from these findings that if children have obesity, there must be something wrong with their brain.

He would like to see whether there are changes in this link if a child is obese early on and later has normal weight or if a child has normal weight early and then becomes obese.

“It’s definitely an eye-opening study, but [it] needs additional work to expand upon it,” he said.

Ms. Kaltenhauser and Dr. Desai report no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Higher weight and body mass index (BMI) in preadolescents are linked with poor brain health, new research suggests.

Poor brain health has been linked with obesity in adults, but little has been known about the link in children.

Lead author Simone Kaltenhauser, a postgraduate research fellow in radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., presented her findings at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

To represent the national sociodemographic makeup, the researchers used baseline information from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, which included 11,878 children aged 9 and 10 years from 21 centers across the United States.

This study included 5,169 children (51.9% girls). Children who had had traumatic brain injury, eating disorders, neurodevelopmental problems, and psychiatric diseases were excluded from the final analysis.

The researchers analyzed information from structural MRI and resting-state functional MRI, which allowed them to measure brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow.

“We analyzed the average fractional anisotropy (FA), mean (MD), axial (AD) and radial diffusivity (RD), and neurite density (ND) of 35 white matter (WM) tracts; cortical thickness and surface of 68 regions; and functional connectivity of 91 predefined network correlations,” the authors explained.

They adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, handedness, and socioeconomic status. They used linear models to determine associations between weight and BMI z-scores and the imaging metrics.
 

Loss of white matter integrity

Among children with obesity, there was pervasive loss of white matter integrity and neurite density, cortical gray matter thinning, and decreased connectivity within and between networks that have been associated with impulse control and reward-based decision-making.

“These changes persisted in a similar pattern also 2 years later,” she said.

A member of the audience asked whether a reverse relationship might be at work – that poor brain health might drive obesity rather than the other way around.

Ms. Kaltenhauser agreed that other factors could be driving the link and acknowledged as a limitation that they did not have access to genetic information on the children.

Information on the effects of overweight and obesity is critical, especially in the United States, where an estimated 1 in 5 children are obese.

Ms. Kaltenhauser said she hopes her study raises awareness of potential brain health consequences as well as the physical consequences of childhood obesity.

Senior author Sam Payabvash, MD, a neuroradiologist and assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine, said in a press release that the study may help explain the findings from previous studies that show an association between higher BMI in children and poor cognitive functioning and academic performance.

“The longitudinal ABCD study gives us the opportunity to observe any changes that occur in children with higher weight and BMI z-scores,” Dr. Payabvash said. “We’ll need to watch over the next 6-10 years.”
 

Avenues for future research

Amit B. Desai, MD, a neuroradiologist with Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not part of the study, said that while the research demonstrates an association between brain structure and BMI and obesity, “there may be other lurking variables.”

“What’s happening at an earlier stage in life could be causing both,” he said.

He noted that he would like to see future studies involving children at even earlier ages, along with investigations of the role of genetics or socioeconomic factors.

Including older children would be interesting as well, he said.

“Myelination doesn’t complete until you’re in your late teens or early 20s, so there are structural changes happening in the brain much later on into adolescence and early adulthood,” Dr. Desai said.

It would be premature, he said, to conclude from these findings that if children have obesity, there must be something wrong with their brain.

He would like to see whether there are changes in this link if a child is obese early on and later has normal weight or if a child has normal weight early and then becomes obese.

“It’s definitely an eye-opening study, but [it] needs additional work to expand upon it,” he said.

Ms. Kaltenhauser and Dr. Desai report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

If you’ve watched this space over the years, you’ll know that I’m not the biggest proponent of vitamin D supplementation. My basic gripe is that you’ve got all these observational studies linking lower levels of vitamin D to everything from dementia to falls to cancer to COVID infection, and then you do a big randomized trial of supplementation and don’t see an effect.

And the explanation is that vitamin D is not necessarily the thing causing these bad outcomes; it’s a bystander – a canary in the coal mine. Your vitamin D level is a marker of your lifestyle; it’s higher in people who eat healthier foods, who exercise, and who spend more time out in the sun.

And yet ... if you were to ask me whether supplementing vitamin D in children with vitamin D deficiency would help them grow better and be healthier, I probably would have been on board for the idea.

And, it looks like, I would have been wrong.

Yes, it’s another negative randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to add to the seemingly ever-growing body of literature suggesting that your money is better spent on a day at the park rather than buying D3 from your local GNC.

We are talking about this study, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Briefly, 8,851 children from around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, were randomized to receive 14,000 international units of vitamin D3 or placebo every week for 3 years.

Before we get into the results of the study, I need to point out that this part of Mongolia has a high rate of vitamin D deficiency. Beyond that, a prior observational study by these authors had shown that lower vitamin D levels were linked to the risk of acquiring latent tuberculosis infection in this area. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency with poorer growth metrics in children. Given the global scourge that is TB (around 2 million deaths a year) and childhood malnutrition (around 10% of children around the world), vitamin D supplementation is incredibly attractive as a public health intervention. It is relatively low on side effects and, importantly, it is cheap – and thus scalable.

Back to the study. These kids had pretty poor vitamin D levels at baseline; 95% of them were deficient, based on the accepted standard of levels less than 20 ng/mL. Over 30% were severely deficient, with levels less than 10 ng/mL.

The initial purpose of this study was to see if supplementation would prevent TB, but that analysis, which was published a few months ago, was negative. Vitamin D levels went up dramatically in the intervention group – they were taking their pills – but there was no difference in the rate of latent TB infection, active TB, other respiratory infections, or even serum interferon gamma levels.

Nothing.

But to be fair, the TB seroconversion rate was lower than expected, potentially leading to an underpowered study.

Which brings us to the just-published analysis which moves away from infectious disease to something where vitamin D should have some stronger footing: growth.

Would the kids who were randomized to vitamin D, those same kids who got their vitamin D levels into the normal range over 3 years of supplementation, grow more or grow better than the kids who didn’t?

And, unfortunately, the answer is still no.

At the end of follow-up, height z scores were not different between the groups. BMI z scores were not different between the groups. Pubertal development was not different between the groups. This was true not only overall, but across various subgroups, including analyses of those kids who had vitamin D levels less than 10 ng/mL to start with.

So, what’s going on? There are two very broad possibilities we can endorse. First, there’s the idea that vitamin D supplementation simply doesn’t do much for health. This is supported, now, by a long string of large clinical trials that show no effect across a variety of disease states and predisease states. In other words, the observational data linking low vitamin D to bad outcomes is correlation, not causation.

Or we can take the tack of some vitamin D apologists and decide that this trial just got it wrong. Perhaps the dose wasn’t given correctly, or 3 years isn’t long enough to see a real difference, or the growth metrics were wrong, or vitamin D needs to be given alongside something else to really work and so on. This is fine; no study is perfect and there is always something to criticize, believe me. But we need to be careful not to fall into the baby-and-bathwater fallacy. Just because we think a study could have done something better, or differently, doesn’t mean we can ignore all the results. And as each new randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation comes out, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that these trialists keep getting their methods wrong. Maybe they are just testing something that doesn’t work.

What to do? Well, it should be obvious. If low vitamin D levels are linked to TB rates and poor growth but supplementation doesn’t fix the problem, then we have to fix what is upstream of the problem. We need to boost vitamin D levels not through supplements, but through nutrition, exercise, activity, and getting outside. That’s a randomized trial you can sign me up for any day.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

If you’ve watched this space over the years, you’ll know that I’m not the biggest proponent of vitamin D supplementation. My basic gripe is that you’ve got all these observational studies linking lower levels of vitamin D to everything from dementia to falls to cancer to COVID infection, and then you do a big randomized trial of supplementation and don’t see an effect.

And the explanation is that vitamin D is not necessarily the thing causing these bad outcomes; it’s a bystander – a canary in the coal mine. Your vitamin D level is a marker of your lifestyle; it’s higher in people who eat healthier foods, who exercise, and who spend more time out in the sun.

And yet ... if you were to ask me whether supplementing vitamin D in children with vitamin D deficiency would help them grow better and be healthier, I probably would have been on board for the idea.

And, it looks like, I would have been wrong.

Yes, it’s another negative randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to add to the seemingly ever-growing body of literature suggesting that your money is better spent on a day at the park rather than buying D3 from your local GNC.

We are talking about this study, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Briefly, 8,851 children from around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, were randomized to receive 14,000 international units of vitamin D3 or placebo every week for 3 years.

Before we get into the results of the study, I need to point out that this part of Mongolia has a high rate of vitamin D deficiency. Beyond that, a prior observational study by these authors had shown that lower vitamin D levels were linked to the risk of acquiring latent tuberculosis infection in this area. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency with poorer growth metrics in children. Given the global scourge that is TB (around 2 million deaths a year) and childhood malnutrition (around 10% of children around the world), vitamin D supplementation is incredibly attractive as a public health intervention. It is relatively low on side effects and, importantly, it is cheap – and thus scalable.

Back to the study. These kids had pretty poor vitamin D levels at baseline; 95% of them were deficient, based on the accepted standard of levels less than 20 ng/mL. Over 30% were severely deficient, with levels less than 10 ng/mL.

The initial purpose of this study was to see if supplementation would prevent TB, but that analysis, which was published a few months ago, was negative. Vitamin D levels went up dramatically in the intervention group – they were taking their pills – but there was no difference in the rate of latent TB infection, active TB, other respiratory infections, or even serum interferon gamma levels.

Nothing.

But to be fair, the TB seroconversion rate was lower than expected, potentially leading to an underpowered study.

Which brings us to the just-published analysis which moves away from infectious disease to something where vitamin D should have some stronger footing: growth.

Would the kids who were randomized to vitamin D, those same kids who got their vitamin D levels into the normal range over 3 years of supplementation, grow more or grow better than the kids who didn’t?

And, unfortunately, the answer is still no.

At the end of follow-up, height z scores were not different between the groups. BMI z scores were not different between the groups. Pubertal development was not different between the groups. This was true not only overall, but across various subgroups, including analyses of those kids who had vitamin D levels less than 10 ng/mL to start with.

So, what’s going on? There are two very broad possibilities we can endorse. First, there’s the idea that vitamin D supplementation simply doesn’t do much for health. This is supported, now, by a long string of large clinical trials that show no effect across a variety of disease states and predisease states. In other words, the observational data linking low vitamin D to bad outcomes is correlation, not causation.

Or we can take the tack of some vitamin D apologists and decide that this trial just got it wrong. Perhaps the dose wasn’t given correctly, or 3 years isn’t long enough to see a real difference, or the growth metrics were wrong, or vitamin D needs to be given alongside something else to really work and so on. This is fine; no study is perfect and there is always something to criticize, believe me. But we need to be careful not to fall into the baby-and-bathwater fallacy. Just because we think a study could have done something better, or differently, doesn’t mean we can ignore all the results. And as each new randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation comes out, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that these trialists keep getting their methods wrong. Maybe they are just testing something that doesn’t work.

What to do? Well, it should be obvious. If low vitamin D levels are linked to TB rates and poor growth but supplementation doesn’t fix the problem, then we have to fix what is upstream of the problem. We need to boost vitamin D levels not through supplements, but through nutrition, exercise, activity, and getting outside. That’s a randomized trial you can sign me up for any day.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

If you’ve watched this space over the years, you’ll know that I’m not the biggest proponent of vitamin D supplementation. My basic gripe is that you’ve got all these observational studies linking lower levels of vitamin D to everything from dementia to falls to cancer to COVID infection, and then you do a big randomized trial of supplementation and don’t see an effect.

And the explanation is that vitamin D is not necessarily the thing causing these bad outcomes; it’s a bystander – a canary in the coal mine. Your vitamin D level is a marker of your lifestyle; it’s higher in people who eat healthier foods, who exercise, and who spend more time out in the sun.

And yet ... if you were to ask me whether supplementing vitamin D in children with vitamin D deficiency would help them grow better and be healthier, I probably would have been on board for the idea.

And, it looks like, I would have been wrong.

Yes, it’s another negative randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to add to the seemingly ever-growing body of literature suggesting that your money is better spent on a day at the park rather than buying D3 from your local GNC.

We are talking about this study, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Briefly, 8,851 children from around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, were randomized to receive 14,000 international units of vitamin D3 or placebo every week for 3 years.

Before we get into the results of the study, I need to point out that this part of Mongolia has a high rate of vitamin D deficiency. Beyond that, a prior observational study by these authors had shown that lower vitamin D levels were linked to the risk of acquiring latent tuberculosis infection in this area. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency with poorer growth metrics in children. Given the global scourge that is TB (around 2 million deaths a year) and childhood malnutrition (around 10% of children around the world), vitamin D supplementation is incredibly attractive as a public health intervention. It is relatively low on side effects and, importantly, it is cheap – and thus scalable.

Back to the study. These kids had pretty poor vitamin D levels at baseline; 95% of them were deficient, based on the accepted standard of levels less than 20 ng/mL. Over 30% were severely deficient, with levels less than 10 ng/mL.

The initial purpose of this study was to see if supplementation would prevent TB, but that analysis, which was published a few months ago, was negative. Vitamin D levels went up dramatically in the intervention group – they were taking their pills – but there was no difference in the rate of latent TB infection, active TB, other respiratory infections, or even serum interferon gamma levels.

Nothing.

But to be fair, the TB seroconversion rate was lower than expected, potentially leading to an underpowered study.

Which brings us to the just-published analysis which moves away from infectious disease to something where vitamin D should have some stronger footing: growth.

Would the kids who were randomized to vitamin D, those same kids who got their vitamin D levels into the normal range over 3 years of supplementation, grow more or grow better than the kids who didn’t?

And, unfortunately, the answer is still no.

At the end of follow-up, height z scores were not different between the groups. BMI z scores were not different between the groups. Pubertal development was not different between the groups. This was true not only overall, but across various subgroups, including analyses of those kids who had vitamin D levels less than 10 ng/mL to start with.

So, what’s going on? There are two very broad possibilities we can endorse. First, there’s the idea that vitamin D supplementation simply doesn’t do much for health. This is supported, now, by a long string of large clinical trials that show no effect across a variety of disease states and predisease states. In other words, the observational data linking low vitamin D to bad outcomes is correlation, not causation.

Or we can take the tack of some vitamin D apologists and decide that this trial just got it wrong. Perhaps the dose wasn’t given correctly, or 3 years isn’t long enough to see a real difference, or the growth metrics were wrong, or vitamin D needs to be given alongside something else to really work and so on. This is fine; no study is perfect and there is always something to criticize, believe me. But we need to be careful not to fall into the baby-and-bathwater fallacy. Just because we think a study could have done something better, or differently, doesn’t mean we can ignore all the results. And as each new randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation comes out, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that these trialists keep getting their methods wrong. Maybe they are just testing something that doesn’t work.

What to do? Well, it should be obvious. If low vitamin D levels are linked to TB rates and poor growth but supplementation doesn’t fix the problem, then we have to fix what is upstream of the problem. We need to boost vitamin D levels not through supplements, but through nutrition, exercise, activity, and getting outside. That’s a randomized trial you can sign me up for any day.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reports of respiratory illness continued to rise as the 2022-23 flu season maintained its early surge through mid-November, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. 

Nationally, 6% of all outpatient visits were because of flu or flu-like illness for the week of Nov. 13-19, up from 5.8% the previous week, the CDC’s Influenza Division said in its weekly FluView report.

Those figures are the highest recorded in November since 2009, but the peak of the 2009-10 flu season occurred even earlier – the week of Oct. 18-24 – and the rate of flu-like illness had already dropped to just over 4.0% by Nov. 15-21 that year and continued to drop thereafter.

Although COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are included in the data from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, the agency did note that “seasonal influenza activity is elevated across the country” and estimated that “there have been at least 6.2 million illnesses, 53,000 hospitalizations, and 2,900 deaths from flu” during the 2022-23 season.

Total flu deaths include 11 reported in children as of Nov. 19, and children ages 0-4 had a higher proportion of visits for flu like-illness than other age groups.

The agency also said the cumulative hospitalization rate of 11.3 per 100,000 population “is higher than the rate observed in [the corresponding week of] every previous season since 2010-2011.” Adults 65 years and older have the highest cumulative rate, 25.9 per 100,000, for this year, compared with 20.7 for children 0-4; 11.1 for adults 50-64; 10.3 for children 5-17; and 5.6 for adults 18-49 years old, the CDC said.

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

Reports of respiratory illness continued to rise as the 2022-23 flu season maintained its early surge through mid-November, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. 

Nationally, 6% of all outpatient visits were because of flu or flu-like illness for the week of Nov. 13-19, up from 5.8% the previous week, the CDC’s Influenza Division said in its weekly FluView report.

Those figures are the highest recorded in November since 2009, but the peak of the 2009-10 flu season occurred even earlier – the week of Oct. 18-24 – and the rate of flu-like illness had already dropped to just over 4.0% by Nov. 15-21 that year and continued to drop thereafter.

Although COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are included in the data from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, the agency did note that “seasonal influenza activity is elevated across the country” and estimated that “there have been at least 6.2 million illnesses, 53,000 hospitalizations, and 2,900 deaths from flu” during the 2022-23 season.

Total flu deaths include 11 reported in children as of Nov. 19, and children ages 0-4 had a higher proportion of visits for flu like-illness than other age groups.

The agency also said the cumulative hospitalization rate of 11.3 per 100,000 population “is higher than the rate observed in [the corresponding week of] every previous season since 2010-2011.” Adults 65 years and older have the highest cumulative rate, 25.9 per 100,000, for this year, compared with 20.7 for children 0-4; 11.1 for adults 50-64; 10.3 for children 5-17; and 5.6 for adults 18-49 years old, the CDC said.

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

Reports of respiratory illness continued to rise as the 2022-23 flu season maintained its early surge through mid-November, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. 

Nationally, 6% of all outpatient visits were because of flu or flu-like illness for the week of Nov. 13-19, up from 5.8% the previous week, the CDC’s Influenza Division said in its weekly FluView report.

Those figures are the highest recorded in November since 2009, but the peak of the 2009-10 flu season occurred even earlier – the week of Oct. 18-24 – and the rate of flu-like illness had already dropped to just over 4.0% by Nov. 15-21 that year and continued to drop thereafter.

Although COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are included in the data from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, the agency did note that “seasonal influenza activity is elevated across the country” and estimated that “there have been at least 6.2 million illnesses, 53,000 hospitalizations, and 2,900 deaths from flu” during the 2022-23 season.

Total flu deaths include 11 reported in children as of Nov. 19, and children ages 0-4 had a higher proportion of visits for flu like-illness than other age groups.

The agency also said the cumulative hospitalization rate of 11.3 per 100,000 population “is higher than the rate observed in [the corresponding week of] every previous season since 2010-2011.” Adults 65 years and older have the highest cumulative rate, 25.9 per 100,000, for this year, compared with 20.7 for children 0-4; 11.1 for adults 50-64; 10.3 for children 5-17; and 5.6 for adults 18-49 years old, the CDC said.

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

Primary care physicians, and especially pediatricians, should consider telling their patients about the long-term oral health problems associated with vaping. 

A new study found that patients who use vapes were at a higher risk of developing tooth decay and periodontal disease. 

Vapes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2006 as an alternative to conventional cigarettes and have become widely popular among youth. According to a 2022 survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.55 million middle and high school students in this country reported using the devices in the previous 30 days.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, expands on an initial case series published in 2020 of patients who reported use of vapes and who had severe dental decay. Karina Irusa, BDS, assistant professor of comprehensive care at Tufts University, Boston, and lead author of the case series, wanted to investigate whether her initial findings would apply to a large population of vape users. 

For the new study, Dr. Irusa and colleagues collected data on 13,216 patients aged 16-40 who attended Tufts dental clinics between 2019 and 2021. All patients had received a diagnosis of tooth decay, had a tooth decay risk assessment on record, and had answered “yes” or “no” to use of vapes in a health history questionnaire. 

Patients had records on file of varying types of dental lesions, cavities filled within the previous 3 years, heavy plaque on teeth, inadequate brushing and flushing, and a self-report of recreational drug use and frequent snacking. If patients had these factors on their file, they were at high risk of developing decay that leads to cavities. 

The study found that 79% of patients who responded “yes” to being a current user of vapes were at high risk for dental decay, compared with 60% of those who did not report using the devices.  

Materials in the vaping liquids further cause an inflammatory response that disrupts an individual’s internal microbiome, according to numerous studies. 

“All the ingredients of vaping are surely a recipe for overgrowth of cavities causing bacteria,” said Jennifer Genuardi, MD, an internist and pediatrician at federally qualified community health center Urban Health Plan, in New York, who was not involved in the study. 

Dr. Irusa said information on patient’s vaping habits should be included in routine dental and medical history questionnaires as part of their overall electronic health record.

“Decay in its severe form not only affects one’s ability to eat but affects facial aesthetics and self-esteem as well,” Dr. Irusa said. 

Dr. Genuardi called the findings unsurprising. 

“We are learning daily more and more about the dangers of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. “There’s a focus of today’s research on the effect of actions on our microbiome and the subsequent effects on our health.”

Dr. Genuardi also said many of her teenage patients do not enjoy dental visits or having cavities filled, which could serve as a useful deterrent to vaping for a demographic that has been targeted with marketing from vape manufacturers. 

“Cavity formation and the experience of having cavities filled is an experience teens can identify with, so this to me seems like perhaps an even more effective angle to try to curb this unhealthy behavior of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians, and especially pediatricians, should consider telling their patients about the long-term oral health problems associated with vaping. 

A new study found that patients who use vapes were at a higher risk of developing tooth decay and periodontal disease. 

Vapes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2006 as an alternative to conventional cigarettes and have become widely popular among youth. According to a 2022 survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.55 million middle and high school students in this country reported using the devices in the previous 30 days.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, expands on an initial case series published in 2020 of patients who reported use of vapes and who had severe dental decay. Karina Irusa, BDS, assistant professor of comprehensive care at Tufts University, Boston, and lead author of the case series, wanted to investigate whether her initial findings would apply to a large population of vape users. 

For the new study, Dr. Irusa and colleagues collected data on 13,216 patients aged 16-40 who attended Tufts dental clinics between 2019 and 2021. All patients had received a diagnosis of tooth decay, had a tooth decay risk assessment on record, and had answered “yes” or “no” to use of vapes in a health history questionnaire. 

Patients had records on file of varying types of dental lesions, cavities filled within the previous 3 years, heavy plaque on teeth, inadequate brushing and flushing, and a self-report of recreational drug use and frequent snacking. If patients had these factors on their file, they were at high risk of developing decay that leads to cavities. 

The study found that 79% of patients who responded “yes” to being a current user of vapes were at high risk for dental decay, compared with 60% of those who did not report using the devices.  

Materials in the vaping liquids further cause an inflammatory response that disrupts an individual’s internal microbiome, according to numerous studies. 

“All the ingredients of vaping are surely a recipe for overgrowth of cavities causing bacteria,” said Jennifer Genuardi, MD, an internist and pediatrician at federally qualified community health center Urban Health Plan, in New York, who was not involved in the study. 

Dr. Irusa said information on patient’s vaping habits should be included in routine dental and medical history questionnaires as part of their overall electronic health record.

“Decay in its severe form not only affects one’s ability to eat but affects facial aesthetics and self-esteem as well,” Dr. Irusa said. 

Dr. Genuardi called the findings unsurprising. 

“We are learning daily more and more about the dangers of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. “There’s a focus of today’s research on the effect of actions on our microbiome and the subsequent effects on our health.”

Dr. Genuardi also said many of her teenage patients do not enjoy dental visits or having cavities filled, which could serve as a useful deterrent to vaping for a demographic that has been targeted with marketing from vape manufacturers. 

“Cavity formation and the experience of having cavities filled is an experience teens can identify with, so this to me seems like perhaps an even more effective angle to try to curb this unhealthy behavior of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians, and especially pediatricians, should consider telling their patients about the long-term oral health problems associated with vaping. 

A new study found that patients who use vapes were at a higher risk of developing tooth decay and periodontal disease. 

Vapes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2006 as an alternative to conventional cigarettes and have become widely popular among youth. According to a 2022 survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.55 million middle and high school students in this country reported using the devices in the previous 30 days.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, expands on an initial case series published in 2020 of patients who reported use of vapes and who had severe dental decay. Karina Irusa, BDS, assistant professor of comprehensive care at Tufts University, Boston, and lead author of the case series, wanted to investigate whether her initial findings would apply to a large population of vape users. 

For the new study, Dr. Irusa and colleagues collected data on 13,216 patients aged 16-40 who attended Tufts dental clinics between 2019 and 2021. All patients had received a diagnosis of tooth decay, had a tooth decay risk assessment on record, and had answered “yes” or “no” to use of vapes in a health history questionnaire. 

Patients had records on file of varying types of dental lesions, cavities filled within the previous 3 years, heavy plaque on teeth, inadequate brushing and flushing, and a self-report of recreational drug use and frequent snacking. If patients had these factors on their file, they were at high risk of developing decay that leads to cavities. 

The study found that 79% of patients who responded “yes” to being a current user of vapes were at high risk for dental decay, compared with 60% of those who did not report using the devices.  

Materials in the vaping liquids further cause an inflammatory response that disrupts an individual’s internal microbiome, according to numerous studies. 

“All the ingredients of vaping are surely a recipe for overgrowth of cavities causing bacteria,” said Jennifer Genuardi, MD, an internist and pediatrician at federally qualified community health center Urban Health Plan, in New York, who was not involved in the study. 

Dr. Irusa said information on patient’s vaping habits should be included in routine dental and medical history questionnaires as part of their overall electronic health record.

“Decay in its severe form not only affects one’s ability to eat but affects facial aesthetics and self-esteem as well,” Dr. Irusa said. 

Dr. Genuardi called the findings unsurprising. 

“We are learning daily more and more about the dangers of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. “There’s a focus of today’s research on the effect of actions on our microbiome and the subsequent effects on our health.”

Dr. Genuardi also said many of her teenage patients do not enjoy dental visits or having cavities filled, which could serve as a useful deterrent to vaping for a demographic that has been targeted with marketing from vape manufacturers. 

“Cavity formation and the experience of having cavities filled is an experience teens can identify with, so this to me seems like perhaps an even more effective angle to try to curb this unhealthy behavior of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Boosting screening for sexually transmitted infections in primary care settings could help alleviate some of the barriers to optimal testing and treatment, a new quality improvement initiative suggests.

Many primary care doctors are challenged for time and send people to other health care settings, such as a local health department or a clinic that specializes in STI diagnosis and treatment, said Wendy Kays, DNP, APRN, AGNP-BC, AAHIVS, a nurse practitioner and researcher at Care Resource, Miami.

However, for multiple reasons, many patients do not follow up and are not screened or treated, Dr. Kays said at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care annual meeting. Some people can afford the copay to see a primary care provider, for example, but do not have the resources to pay for a second clinical visit or laboratory testing.

In other instances, transportation can be a problem. “People, especially in the neighborhood where we are located, depend a lot on buses to go to their primary care,” Dr. Kays told this news organization. But “follow-up is very important. It can promote early treatment and prevent the spread of disease.”

Primary care is critical as a gateway into health care that could help address low rates of STI screening, she said. There is also evidence that STIs are on the rise because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

If more primary care doctors tested and treated STIs using standardized Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, patients would not have to make a trip to another location, Dr. Kays said.

“The primary health setting … is actually the perfect place to get your screening,” said Jimmie Leckliter, MSN-Ed, RN, PHN, in an interview. He was not affiliated with the presentation. “I’m a former ER nurse, and a lot of people are using the ER as primary care, and it’s not really set up to do that screening.”

Mr. Leckliter suggested that primary care doctors incorporate some questions about sexual health during a regular head-to-toe checkup and ask questions in a very clinical, nonjudgmental way.

He also acknowledged that for some physicians it can be uncomfortable to raise the issues. “Unfortunately, I think in our society, talking to people about sex is taboo, and people become uncomfortable. We need to be able to learn to put our biases aside and treat our patients. That’s what our job is, added Mr. Leckliter, an adjunct faculty member at the College of the Desert’s School of Nursing and Allied Health Programs, Palm Springs, Calif.

Clinicians should be aware of the stigma associated with sending a person to an STD clinic for further workup, Mr. Leckliter advised. “You have to look at the stigma in the community in which you’re located. It makes a big difference,” he said. “Is it mainly a Latino or African American community?”
 

Compliance was a challenge

Dr. Kays and colleague performed a quality improvement project focused on implementing the CDC’s STI treatment guidelines at Care Resource. One goal was to educate a multidisciplinary team on the importance of screening in the primary care setting. The clientele at Care Resource consists primarily of underprivileged minorities, including the Latino, Black, gay, and transgender communities.

Six health care providers participated – two medical doctors and four advanced-practice providers. They evaluated patient charts from the electronic health record system 4 weeks before the intervention and 4 weeks after.

The education had a positive impact, the researchers reported, even though three providers were compliant with the CDC-recommended screening protocol and three others were not.

The quality improvement initiative had some limitations, Dr. Kays noted. “The hope is that the [quality improvement] process will continue moving forward, and early diagnosis and treatment of STIs will be standardized in this primary care practice.”

An evidence-based tool to screen for STIs in primary care is “crucial,” she added. Using a standardized, evidence-based protocol in primary care “can create positive change in patients’ outcomes.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Kays and Mr. Leckliter report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Boosting screening for sexually transmitted infections in primary care settings could help alleviate some of the barriers to optimal testing and treatment, a new quality improvement initiative suggests.

Many primary care doctors are challenged for time and send people to other health care settings, such as a local health department or a clinic that specializes in STI diagnosis and treatment, said Wendy Kays, DNP, APRN, AGNP-BC, AAHIVS, a nurse practitioner and researcher at Care Resource, Miami.

However, for multiple reasons, many patients do not follow up and are not screened or treated, Dr. Kays said at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care annual meeting. Some people can afford the copay to see a primary care provider, for example, but do not have the resources to pay for a second clinical visit or laboratory testing.

In other instances, transportation can be a problem. “People, especially in the neighborhood where we are located, depend a lot on buses to go to their primary care,” Dr. Kays told this news organization. But “follow-up is very important. It can promote early treatment and prevent the spread of disease.”

Primary care is critical as a gateway into health care that could help address low rates of STI screening, she said. There is also evidence that STIs are on the rise because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

If more primary care doctors tested and treated STIs using standardized Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, patients would not have to make a trip to another location, Dr. Kays said.

“The primary health setting … is actually the perfect place to get your screening,” said Jimmie Leckliter, MSN-Ed, RN, PHN, in an interview. He was not affiliated with the presentation. “I’m a former ER nurse, and a lot of people are using the ER as primary care, and it’s not really set up to do that screening.”

Mr. Leckliter suggested that primary care doctors incorporate some questions about sexual health during a regular head-to-toe checkup and ask questions in a very clinical, nonjudgmental way.

He also acknowledged that for some physicians it can be uncomfortable to raise the issues. “Unfortunately, I think in our society, talking to people about sex is taboo, and people become uncomfortable. We need to be able to learn to put our biases aside and treat our patients. That’s what our job is, added Mr. Leckliter, an adjunct faculty member at the College of the Desert’s School of Nursing and Allied Health Programs, Palm Springs, Calif.

Clinicians should be aware of the stigma associated with sending a person to an STD clinic for further workup, Mr. Leckliter advised. “You have to look at the stigma in the community in which you’re located. It makes a big difference,” he said. “Is it mainly a Latino or African American community?”
 

Compliance was a challenge

Dr. Kays and colleague performed a quality improvement project focused on implementing the CDC’s STI treatment guidelines at Care Resource. One goal was to educate a multidisciplinary team on the importance of screening in the primary care setting. The clientele at Care Resource consists primarily of underprivileged minorities, including the Latino, Black, gay, and transgender communities.

Six health care providers participated – two medical doctors and four advanced-practice providers. They evaluated patient charts from the electronic health record system 4 weeks before the intervention and 4 weeks after.

The education had a positive impact, the researchers reported, even though three providers were compliant with the CDC-recommended screening protocol and three others were not.

The quality improvement initiative had some limitations, Dr. Kays noted. “The hope is that the [quality improvement] process will continue moving forward, and early diagnosis and treatment of STIs will be standardized in this primary care practice.”

An evidence-based tool to screen for STIs in primary care is “crucial,” she added. Using a standardized, evidence-based protocol in primary care “can create positive change in patients’ outcomes.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Kays and Mr. Leckliter report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Boosting screening for sexually transmitted infections in primary care settings could help alleviate some of the barriers to optimal testing and treatment, a new quality improvement initiative suggests.

Many primary care doctors are challenged for time and send people to other health care settings, such as a local health department or a clinic that specializes in STI diagnosis and treatment, said Wendy Kays, DNP, APRN, AGNP-BC, AAHIVS, a nurse practitioner and researcher at Care Resource, Miami.

However, for multiple reasons, many patients do not follow up and are not screened or treated, Dr. Kays said at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care annual meeting. Some people can afford the copay to see a primary care provider, for example, but do not have the resources to pay for a second clinical visit or laboratory testing.

In other instances, transportation can be a problem. “People, especially in the neighborhood where we are located, depend a lot on buses to go to their primary care,” Dr. Kays told this news organization. But “follow-up is very important. It can promote early treatment and prevent the spread of disease.”

Primary care is critical as a gateway into health care that could help address low rates of STI screening, she said. There is also evidence that STIs are on the rise because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

If more primary care doctors tested and treated STIs using standardized Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, patients would not have to make a trip to another location, Dr. Kays said.

“The primary health setting … is actually the perfect place to get your screening,” said Jimmie Leckliter, MSN-Ed, RN, PHN, in an interview. He was not affiliated with the presentation. “I’m a former ER nurse, and a lot of people are using the ER as primary care, and it’s not really set up to do that screening.”

Mr. Leckliter suggested that primary care doctors incorporate some questions about sexual health during a regular head-to-toe checkup and ask questions in a very clinical, nonjudgmental way.

He also acknowledged that for some physicians it can be uncomfortable to raise the issues. “Unfortunately, I think in our society, talking to people about sex is taboo, and people become uncomfortable. We need to be able to learn to put our biases aside and treat our patients. That’s what our job is, added Mr. Leckliter, an adjunct faculty member at the College of the Desert’s School of Nursing and Allied Health Programs, Palm Springs, Calif.

Clinicians should be aware of the stigma associated with sending a person to an STD clinic for further workup, Mr. Leckliter advised. “You have to look at the stigma in the community in which you’re located. It makes a big difference,” he said. “Is it mainly a Latino or African American community?”
 

Compliance was a challenge

Dr. Kays and colleague performed a quality improvement project focused on implementing the CDC’s STI treatment guidelines at Care Resource. One goal was to educate a multidisciplinary team on the importance of screening in the primary care setting. The clientele at Care Resource consists primarily of underprivileged minorities, including the Latino, Black, gay, and transgender communities.

Six health care providers participated – two medical doctors and four advanced-practice providers. They evaluated patient charts from the electronic health record system 4 weeks before the intervention and 4 weeks after.

The education had a positive impact, the researchers reported, even though three providers were compliant with the CDC-recommended screening protocol and three others were not.

The quality improvement initiative had some limitations, Dr. Kays noted. “The hope is that the [quality improvement] process will continue moving forward, and early diagnosis and treatment of STIs will be standardized in this primary care practice.”

An evidence-based tool to screen for STIs in primary care is “crucial,” she added. Using a standardized, evidence-based protocol in primary care “can create positive change in patients’ outcomes.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Kays and Mr. Leckliter report no relevant financial relationships.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

Patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) who were treated with topical brepocitinib had a significant improvement in their Eczema Area and Severity Index score at 6 weeks compared with a group that received vehicle, in a recently published study..

The investigators said that brepocitinib, an investigational dual tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) and Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in patients with mild to moderate AD based on improvements in multiple measures, including Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) responder rates. Brepocitinib also reduced pruritus symptoms as early as 2 days after the start of treatment, they noted.

“This study supports the further evaluation of topical brepocitinib as a novel treatment for mild to moderate AD,” Megan N. Landis, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and colleagues wrote in the study published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

They evaluated brepocitinib in a phase 2b, double-blind, dose-ranging study where 292 patients were randomized to receive brepocitinib once daily (brepocitinib 0.1%, 0.3%, 1.0%, 3.0%) or twice daily (brepocitinib 0.3%, 1.0%), or vehicle for 6 weeks. At 6 weeks, the researchers assessed EASI total score as a primary outcome, an IGA score of 0 or 1 as a secondary outcome. The mean age of the patients was 40 years (range, 13-74), almost 60% were White, 17.5% were Black, and about 20% were Asian.

Compared with the corresponding once-daily vehicle group (least squares mean reduction of –44.4; 90% confidence interval, –57.3 to –31.6) and the twice-daily vehicle group (LSM, –47.6; 90% CI, –57.5 to –37.7) , the brepocitinib 1% once-daily group (LSM, –70.1; 90% CI, –82.1 to –58.0) and twice-daily group (LSM, –75.0; 90% CI, –83.8 to –66.2) had significant percentage reductions in EASI total score compared with baseline at 6 weeks. Patients in the other brepocitinib dose groups had nonsignificant reductions in EASI from baseline.

Regarding secondary outcomes, a significantly higher percentage of patients in five of the six active treatment groups achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1 and at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score in the once-daily brepocitinib 0.1% group (29.7%; 90% CI, 18.5%-43.3%), 0.3% group (33.3%; 90% CI, 21.3%-47.0%), 1.0% group (40.5%; 90% CI, 28.0%-54.4%), 3.0% group (44.4%; 90% CI, 30.2%-59.1%), and brepocitinib 0.3% twice-daily group (33.3%; 90% CI, 21.3%-47.0%) compared with the once-daily (10.8%; 90% CI, 4.8%-22.2%) and twice-daily (13.9%; 90% CI, 6.9%-25.4%) vehicle groups.

The study authors noted that 37.0% of patients overall experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), with most TEAEs occurring in the once-daily vehicle (48.6%), twice-daily vehicle (47.2%), and brepocitinib 0.1% (45.9%) groups. Adverse events were not considered dose dependent, and no group had any serious TEAEs or deaths.

Nasopharyngitis and worsening AD were the most common TEAEs reported, with about 8% of those in the vehicle groups experiencing worsening AD.

Brepocitinib is also currently being developed as a treatment for dermatomyositis, systemic lupus erythematosus, hidradenitis suppurativa, and noninfectious uveitis by Priovant Therapeutics, a company founded by Pfizer and Roivant Sciences.

In September 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis aged 12 years and older, the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD.

This study was sponsored by Pfizer. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of investigator positions, fees, honoraria, research grants, employee positions, and holding stock or shares for a variety of pharmaceutical, life science, and biotechnology companies.

Patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) who were treated with topical brepocitinib had a significant improvement in their Eczema Area and Severity Index score at 6 weeks compared with a group that received vehicle, in a recently published study..

The investigators said that brepocitinib, an investigational dual tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) and Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in patients with mild to moderate AD based on improvements in multiple measures, including Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) responder rates. Brepocitinib also reduced pruritus symptoms as early as 2 days after the start of treatment, they noted.

“This study supports the further evaluation of topical brepocitinib as a novel treatment for mild to moderate AD,” Megan N. Landis, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and colleagues wrote in the study published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

They evaluated brepocitinib in a phase 2b, double-blind, dose-ranging study where 292 patients were randomized to receive brepocitinib once daily (brepocitinib 0.1%, 0.3%, 1.0%, 3.0%) or twice daily (brepocitinib 0.3%, 1.0%), or vehicle for 6 weeks. At 6 weeks, the researchers assessed EASI total score as a primary outcome, an IGA score of 0 or 1 as a secondary outcome. The mean age of the patients was 40 years (range, 13-74), almost 60% were White, 17.5% were Black, and about 20% were Asian.

Compared with the corresponding once-daily vehicle group (least squares mean reduction of –44.4; 90% confidence interval, –57.3 to –31.6) and the twice-daily vehicle group (LSM, –47.6; 90% CI, –57.5 to –37.7) , the brepocitinib 1% once-daily group (LSM, –70.1; 90% CI, –82.1 to –58.0) and twice-daily group (LSM, –75.0; 90% CI, –83.8 to –66.2) had significant percentage reductions in EASI total score compared with baseline at 6 weeks. Patients in the other brepocitinib dose groups had nonsignificant reductions in EASI from baseline.

Regarding secondary outcomes, a significantly higher percentage of patients in five of the six active treatment groups achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1 and at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score in the once-daily brepocitinib 0.1% group (29.7%; 90% CI, 18.5%-43.3%), 0.3% group (33.3%; 90% CI, 21.3%-47.0%), 1.0% group (40.5%; 90% CI, 28.0%-54.4%), 3.0% group (44.4%; 90% CI, 30.2%-59.1%), and brepocitinib 0.3% twice-daily group (33.3%; 90% CI, 21.3%-47.0%) compared with the once-daily (10.8%; 90% CI, 4.8%-22.2%) and twice-daily (13.9%; 90% CI, 6.9%-25.4%) vehicle groups.

The study authors noted that 37.0% of patients overall experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), with most TEAEs occurring in the once-daily vehicle (48.6%), twice-daily vehicle (47.2%), and brepocitinib 0.1% (45.9%) groups. Adverse events were not considered dose dependent, and no group had any serious TEAEs or deaths.

Nasopharyngitis and worsening AD were the most common TEAEs reported, with about 8% of those in the vehicle groups experiencing worsening AD.

Brepocitinib is also currently being developed as a treatment for dermatomyositis, systemic lupus erythematosus, hidradenitis suppurativa, and noninfectious uveitis by Priovant Therapeutics, a company founded by Pfizer and Roivant Sciences.

In September 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis aged 12 years and older, the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD.

This study was sponsored by Pfizer. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of investigator positions, fees, honoraria, research grants, employee positions, and holding stock or shares for a variety of pharmaceutical, life science, and biotechnology companies.

Patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) who were treated with topical brepocitinib had a significant improvement in their Eczema Area and Severity Index score at 6 weeks compared with a group that received vehicle, in a recently published study..

The investigators said that brepocitinib, an investigational dual tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) and Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in patients with mild to moderate AD based on improvements in multiple measures, including Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) responder rates. Brepocitinib also reduced pruritus symptoms as early as 2 days after the start of treatment, they noted.

“This study supports the further evaluation of topical brepocitinib as a novel treatment for mild to moderate AD,” Megan N. Landis, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and colleagues wrote in the study published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

They evaluated brepocitinib in a phase 2b, double-blind, dose-ranging study where 292 patients were randomized to receive brepocitinib once daily (brepocitinib 0.1%, 0.3%, 1.0%, 3.0%) or twice daily (brepocitinib 0.3%, 1.0%), or vehicle for 6 weeks. At 6 weeks, the researchers assessed EASI total score as a primary outcome, an IGA score of 0 or 1 as a secondary outcome. The mean age of the patients was 40 years (range, 13-74), almost 60% were White, 17.5% were Black, and about 20% were Asian.

Compared with the corresponding once-daily vehicle group (least squares mean reduction of –44.4; 90% confidence interval, –57.3 to –31.6) and the twice-daily vehicle group (LSM, –47.6; 90% CI, –57.5 to –37.7) , the brepocitinib 1% once-daily group (LSM, –70.1; 90% CI, –82.1 to –58.0) and twice-daily group (LSM, –75.0; 90% CI, –83.8 to –66.2) had significant percentage reductions in EASI total score compared with baseline at 6 weeks. Patients in the other brepocitinib dose groups had nonsignificant reductions in EASI from baseline.

Regarding secondary outcomes, a significantly higher percentage of patients in five of the six active treatment groups achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1 and at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score in the once-daily brepocitinib 0.1% group (29.7%; 90% CI, 18.5%-43.3%), 0.3% group (33.3%; 90% CI, 21.3%-47.0%), 1.0% group (40.5%; 90% CI, 28.0%-54.4%), 3.0% group (44.4%; 90% CI, 30.2%-59.1%), and brepocitinib 0.3% twice-daily group (33.3%; 90% CI, 21.3%-47.0%) compared with the once-daily (10.8%; 90% CI, 4.8%-22.2%) and twice-daily (13.9%; 90% CI, 6.9%-25.4%) vehicle groups.

The study authors noted that 37.0% of patients overall experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), with most TEAEs occurring in the once-daily vehicle (48.6%), twice-daily vehicle (47.2%), and brepocitinib 0.1% (45.9%) groups. Adverse events were not considered dose dependent, and no group had any serious TEAEs or deaths.

Nasopharyngitis and worsening AD were the most common TEAEs reported, with about 8% of those in the vehicle groups experiencing worsening AD.

Brepocitinib is also currently being developed as a treatment for dermatomyositis, systemic lupus erythematosus, hidradenitis suppurativa, and noninfectious uveitis by Priovant Therapeutics, a company founded by Pfizer and Roivant Sciences.

In September 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis aged 12 years and older, the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD.

This study was sponsored by Pfizer. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of investigator positions, fees, honoraria, research grants, employee positions, and holding stock or shares for a variety of pharmaceutical, life science, and biotechnology companies.

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.

“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”

Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”

The issue of “untitling” a doctor and failing to use their honorific is becoming increasingly common, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.

“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”

To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.

Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”

Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.

The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
 

Physician preferences vary

Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”

This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.

Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”

He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”

Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”

When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.

Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”

Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”

Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
 

How to handle informality

If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”

This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”

Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”

Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”

In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.

Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.

Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”

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

When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.

“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”

Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”

The issue of “untitling” a doctor and failing to use their honorific is becoming increasingly common, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.

“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”

To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.

Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”

Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.

The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
 

Physician preferences vary

Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”

This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.

Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”

He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”

Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”

When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.

Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”

Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”

Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
 

How to handle informality

If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”

This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”

Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”

Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”

In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.

Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.

Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”

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

When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.

“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”

Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”

The issue of “untitling” a doctor and failing to use their honorific is becoming increasingly common, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.

“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”

To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.

Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”

Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.

The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
 

Physician preferences vary

Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”

This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.

Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”

He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”

Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”

When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.

Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”

Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”

Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
 

How to handle informality

If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”

This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”

Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”

Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”

In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.

Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.

Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Supported by several cases series, a large cohort analysis has associated exposure to probiotics in the intensive care unit with a measurable increase in bacteremia and bacteremia-related mortality due to organisms in these preparations, according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

According to data presented by Scott Mayer, MD, chief resident at HealthONE Denver, which is part of the HCA Healthcare chain of hospitals, the risk is increased by any probiotic exposure. However, the risk is particularly acute for powdered formulations, presumably because powder more easily disseminates to contaminate central venous catheters.

“We think that probiotics should be eliminated entirely from the ICU. If not, we encourage eliminating the powder formulations,” said Dr. Mayer, who led the study.

The data linking probiotics to ICU bacteremia were drawn from 23,533 ICU admissions over a 5-year period in the HCA hospital database. Bacteremia proven to be probiotic-related was uncommon (0.37%), but the consequences were serious.

For those with probiotic-related bacteremia, the mortality rate was 25.6% or essentially twofold greater than the 13.5% mortality rate among those without probiotic bacteremia. An odds ratio drawn from a regression analysis confirmed a significant difference (OR, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.71; P < .01).

“The absolute risk of mortality is modest but not insignificant,” said Dr. Mayer. This suggests one probiotic-related mortality for about every 200 patients taking a probiotic in the ICU.

These deaths occur without any clear compensatory benefit from taking probiotics, according to Dr. Mayer. There is a long list of potential benefits from probiotics that might be relevant to patients in the ICU, particularly prophylaxis for Clostridioides difficile infection, but also including a variety of gastrointestinal disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome; however, none of these are firmly established in general, and particularly for patients in the ICU.

“The American College of Gastroenterology currently recommends against probiotics for the prevention of C. diff.,” Dr. Mayer said. Although the American Gastroenterological Association has issued a “conditional recommendation” for prevention of C. diff. infection with probiotics, Dr. Mayer pointed out this is qualified by a “low quality of evidence” and it is not specific to the ICU setting.

“The evidence for benefit is weak or nonexistent, but the risks are real,” Dr. Mayer said.

To confirm that probiotic-associated ICU bacteremias in the HCA hospital database were, in fact, related to probiotics being taken by patients at time of admission, Dr. Mayer evaluated the record of each of the 86 patients with probiotic bacteremia–associated mortality.

“I identified the organism that grew from the blood cultures to confirm that it was contained in the probiotic the patient was taking,” explained Dr. Mayer, who said this information was available in the electronic medical records.

The risk of probiotic-associated bacteremia in ICU patients was consistent with a series of case series that prompted the study. Dr. Mayer explained that he became interested when he encountered patients on his ICU rounds who were taking probiotics. He knew very little about these agents and explored the medical literature to see what evidence was available.

“I found several case reports of ICU patients with probiotic-associated infections, several of which were suspected of being associated with contamination of the central lines,” Dr. Mayer said. In one case, the patient was not taking a probiotic, but a patient in an adjacent bed was receiving a powdered probiotic that was implicated. This prompted suspicion that the cause was central-line contamination.

This was evaluated in the HCA ICU database and also found to be a significant risk. Among the 67 patients in whom a capsule or tablet was used, the rate of probiotic-associated bacteremia was 0.33%. For those in which the probiotic was a powdered formulation, the rate was 0.76%, a significant difference (P < .01).

Dr. Mayer acknowledged that these data do not rule out all potential benefits from probiotics in the ICU. He believes an obstacle to proving benefit has been the heterogeneity of available products, which are likely to be relevant to any therapeutic role, including prevention of C. diff. infection.

“There are now a large number of products available, and they contain a large variety of strains of organisms, so this has been a difficult area to study,” he said. However, he maintains it is prudent at this point to avoid probiotics in the ICU because the risks are not confined to the patient making this choice.

“My concern is not just the lack of evidence of benefit relative to the risk for the patient but the potential for probiotics in the ICU to place other patients at risk,” Dr. Mayer said.

Others have also noted the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU, but the promise remains elusive. In a 2018 review article published in the Journal of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, the authors evaluated a series of potential applications of probiotics in critically ill patients. These included treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and surgical-site infections (SSI). For each, the data were negative or inconclusive.

Over the 4 years that have passed since the review was published, several trials have further explored the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU but none have changed this basic conclusion. For example, a 2021 multinational trial, published in The Lancet, randomized more than 2,600 patients to probiotics or placebo and showed no effect on VAP incidence (21.9% vs. 21.3%).

The lead author of the 2018 review, Heather A. Vitko, PhD, an associate professor in the department of acute and tertiary care, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, also emphasized that the potential for benefit cannot be considered without the potential for risk. She, like Dr. Mayer, cited the case studies implicating probiotics in systemic infections.

For administration, probiotic capsules or sachets “often need to be opened for administration through a feeding tube,” she noted. The risk of contamination comes from both the air and contaminated hands, the latter of which “can cause a translocation to a central line catheter where the microbes have direct entry into the systemic circulation.”

She did not call for a ban of probiotics in the ICU, but she did recommend “a precautionary approach,” encouraging clinicians to “distinguish between reality [of what has been proven] and what is presented in the marketing of antibiotics.”

Dr. Mayer and Dr. Vitko have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Supported by several cases series, a large cohort analysis has associated exposure to probiotics in the intensive care unit with a measurable increase in bacteremia and bacteremia-related mortality due to organisms in these preparations, according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

According to data presented by Scott Mayer, MD, chief resident at HealthONE Denver, which is part of the HCA Healthcare chain of hospitals, the risk is increased by any probiotic exposure. However, the risk is particularly acute for powdered formulations, presumably because powder more easily disseminates to contaminate central venous catheters.

“We think that probiotics should be eliminated entirely from the ICU. If not, we encourage eliminating the powder formulations,” said Dr. Mayer, who led the study.

The data linking probiotics to ICU bacteremia were drawn from 23,533 ICU admissions over a 5-year period in the HCA hospital database. Bacteremia proven to be probiotic-related was uncommon (0.37%), but the consequences were serious.

For those with probiotic-related bacteremia, the mortality rate was 25.6% or essentially twofold greater than the 13.5% mortality rate among those without probiotic bacteremia. An odds ratio drawn from a regression analysis confirmed a significant difference (OR, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.71; P < .01).

“The absolute risk of mortality is modest but not insignificant,” said Dr. Mayer. This suggests one probiotic-related mortality for about every 200 patients taking a probiotic in the ICU.

These deaths occur without any clear compensatory benefit from taking probiotics, according to Dr. Mayer. There is a long list of potential benefits from probiotics that might be relevant to patients in the ICU, particularly prophylaxis for Clostridioides difficile infection, but also including a variety of gastrointestinal disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome; however, none of these are firmly established in general, and particularly for patients in the ICU.

“The American College of Gastroenterology currently recommends against probiotics for the prevention of C. diff.,” Dr. Mayer said. Although the American Gastroenterological Association has issued a “conditional recommendation” for prevention of C. diff. infection with probiotics, Dr. Mayer pointed out this is qualified by a “low quality of evidence” and it is not specific to the ICU setting.

“The evidence for benefit is weak or nonexistent, but the risks are real,” Dr. Mayer said.

To confirm that probiotic-associated ICU bacteremias in the HCA hospital database were, in fact, related to probiotics being taken by patients at time of admission, Dr. Mayer evaluated the record of each of the 86 patients with probiotic bacteremia–associated mortality.

“I identified the organism that grew from the blood cultures to confirm that it was contained in the probiotic the patient was taking,” explained Dr. Mayer, who said this information was available in the electronic medical records.

The risk of probiotic-associated bacteremia in ICU patients was consistent with a series of case series that prompted the study. Dr. Mayer explained that he became interested when he encountered patients on his ICU rounds who were taking probiotics. He knew very little about these agents and explored the medical literature to see what evidence was available.

“I found several case reports of ICU patients with probiotic-associated infections, several of which were suspected of being associated with contamination of the central lines,” Dr. Mayer said. In one case, the patient was not taking a probiotic, but a patient in an adjacent bed was receiving a powdered probiotic that was implicated. This prompted suspicion that the cause was central-line contamination.

This was evaluated in the HCA ICU database and also found to be a significant risk. Among the 67 patients in whom a capsule or tablet was used, the rate of probiotic-associated bacteremia was 0.33%. For those in which the probiotic was a powdered formulation, the rate was 0.76%, a significant difference (P < .01).

Dr. Mayer acknowledged that these data do not rule out all potential benefits from probiotics in the ICU. He believes an obstacle to proving benefit has been the heterogeneity of available products, which are likely to be relevant to any therapeutic role, including prevention of C. diff. infection.

“There are now a large number of products available, and they contain a large variety of strains of organisms, so this has been a difficult area to study,” he said. However, he maintains it is prudent at this point to avoid probiotics in the ICU because the risks are not confined to the patient making this choice.

“My concern is not just the lack of evidence of benefit relative to the risk for the patient but the potential for probiotics in the ICU to place other patients at risk,” Dr. Mayer said.

Others have also noted the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU, but the promise remains elusive. In a 2018 review article published in the Journal of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, the authors evaluated a series of potential applications of probiotics in critically ill patients. These included treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and surgical-site infections (SSI). For each, the data were negative or inconclusive.

Over the 4 years that have passed since the review was published, several trials have further explored the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU but none have changed this basic conclusion. For example, a 2021 multinational trial, published in The Lancet, randomized more than 2,600 patients to probiotics or placebo and showed no effect on VAP incidence (21.9% vs. 21.3%).

The lead author of the 2018 review, Heather A. Vitko, PhD, an associate professor in the department of acute and tertiary care, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, also emphasized that the potential for benefit cannot be considered without the potential for risk. She, like Dr. Mayer, cited the case studies implicating probiotics in systemic infections.

For administration, probiotic capsules or sachets “often need to be opened for administration through a feeding tube,” she noted. The risk of contamination comes from both the air and contaminated hands, the latter of which “can cause a translocation to a central line catheter where the microbes have direct entry into the systemic circulation.”

She did not call for a ban of probiotics in the ICU, but she did recommend “a precautionary approach,” encouraging clinicians to “distinguish between reality [of what has been proven] and what is presented in the marketing of antibiotics.”

Dr. Mayer and Dr. Vitko have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Supported by several cases series, a large cohort analysis has associated exposure to probiotics in the intensive care unit with a measurable increase in bacteremia and bacteremia-related mortality due to organisms in these preparations, according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

According to data presented by Scott Mayer, MD, chief resident at HealthONE Denver, which is part of the HCA Healthcare chain of hospitals, the risk is increased by any probiotic exposure. However, the risk is particularly acute for powdered formulations, presumably because powder more easily disseminates to contaminate central venous catheters.

“We think that probiotics should be eliminated entirely from the ICU. If not, we encourage eliminating the powder formulations,” said Dr. Mayer, who led the study.

The data linking probiotics to ICU bacteremia were drawn from 23,533 ICU admissions over a 5-year period in the HCA hospital database. Bacteremia proven to be probiotic-related was uncommon (0.37%), but the consequences were serious.

For those with probiotic-related bacteremia, the mortality rate was 25.6% or essentially twofold greater than the 13.5% mortality rate among those without probiotic bacteremia. An odds ratio drawn from a regression analysis confirmed a significant difference (OR, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.71; P < .01).

“The absolute risk of mortality is modest but not insignificant,” said Dr. Mayer. This suggests one probiotic-related mortality for about every 200 patients taking a probiotic in the ICU.

These deaths occur without any clear compensatory benefit from taking probiotics, according to Dr. Mayer. There is a long list of potential benefits from probiotics that might be relevant to patients in the ICU, particularly prophylaxis for Clostridioides difficile infection, but also including a variety of gastrointestinal disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome; however, none of these are firmly established in general, and particularly for patients in the ICU.

“The American College of Gastroenterology currently recommends against probiotics for the prevention of C. diff.,” Dr. Mayer said. Although the American Gastroenterological Association has issued a “conditional recommendation” for prevention of C. diff. infection with probiotics, Dr. Mayer pointed out this is qualified by a “low quality of evidence” and it is not specific to the ICU setting.

“The evidence for benefit is weak or nonexistent, but the risks are real,” Dr. Mayer said.

To confirm that probiotic-associated ICU bacteremias in the HCA hospital database were, in fact, related to probiotics being taken by patients at time of admission, Dr. Mayer evaluated the record of each of the 86 patients with probiotic bacteremia–associated mortality.

“I identified the organism that grew from the blood cultures to confirm that it was contained in the probiotic the patient was taking,” explained Dr. Mayer, who said this information was available in the electronic medical records.

The risk of probiotic-associated bacteremia in ICU patients was consistent with a series of case series that prompted the study. Dr. Mayer explained that he became interested when he encountered patients on his ICU rounds who were taking probiotics. He knew very little about these agents and explored the medical literature to see what evidence was available.

“I found several case reports of ICU patients with probiotic-associated infections, several of which were suspected of being associated with contamination of the central lines,” Dr. Mayer said. In one case, the patient was not taking a probiotic, but a patient in an adjacent bed was receiving a powdered probiotic that was implicated. This prompted suspicion that the cause was central-line contamination.

This was evaluated in the HCA ICU database and also found to be a significant risk. Among the 67 patients in whom a capsule or tablet was used, the rate of probiotic-associated bacteremia was 0.33%. For those in which the probiotic was a powdered formulation, the rate was 0.76%, a significant difference (P < .01).

Dr. Mayer acknowledged that these data do not rule out all potential benefits from probiotics in the ICU. He believes an obstacle to proving benefit has been the heterogeneity of available products, which are likely to be relevant to any therapeutic role, including prevention of C. diff. infection.

“There are now a large number of products available, and they contain a large variety of strains of organisms, so this has been a difficult area to study,” he said. However, he maintains it is prudent at this point to avoid probiotics in the ICU because the risks are not confined to the patient making this choice.

“My concern is not just the lack of evidence of benefit relative to the risk for the patient but the potential for probiotics in the ICU to place other patients at risk,” Dr. Mayer said.

Others have also noted the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU, but the promise remains elusive. In a 2018 review article published in the Journal of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, the authors evaluated a series of potential applications of probiotics in critically ill patients. These included treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and surgical-site infections (SSI). For each, the data were negative or inconclusive.

Over the 4 years that have passed since the review was published, several trials have further explored the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU but none have changed this basic conclusion. For example, a 2021 multinational trial, published in The Lancet, randomized more than 2,600 patients to probiotics or placebo and showed no effect on VAP incidence (21.9% vs. 21.3%).

The lead author of the 2018 review, Heather A. Vitko, PhD, an associate professor in the department of acute and tertiary care, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, also emphasized that the potential for benefit cannot be considered without the potential for risk. She, like Dr. Mayer, cited the case studies implicating probiotics in systemic infections.

For administration, probiotic capsules or sachets “often need to be opened for administration through a feeding tube,” she noted. The risk of contamination comes from both the air and contaminated hands, the latter of which “can cause a translocation to a central line catheter where the microbes have direct entry into the systemic circulation.”

She did not call for a ban of probiotics in the ICU, but she did recommend “a precautionary approach,” encouraging clinicians to “distinguish between reality [of what has been proven] and what is presented in the marketing of antibiotics.”

Dr. Mayer and Dr. Vitko have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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