Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is associated with both anxiolytic and antidepressant effects in patients with anxious depression, new research suggests.

In an analysis of data from more than 1,800 patients with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD), more than 75% also had anxiety. Following TMS, those with anxious depression showed reductions from baseline of at least 50% on anxiety and depression scores.

In addition, the anxious and nonanxious groups had equivalent absolute improvement in scores measuring depression.

“The ultimate message is that TMS is quite effective in the more difficult-to-treat and more disabled group of anxious depressives,” coinvestigator Scott Aaronson, MD, chief science officer, Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics, and director of the Psychedelic Center of Excellence, Sheppard Pratt, Towson, Md., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Large cohort

Dr. Aaronson noted that between 50% and 75% of patients with depression also have significant anxiety symptoms.

“The presence of significant anxiety in a depressed person significantly increases depression symptom severity, functional impairment, chronicity, and suicidality,” he said.

In general, “when patients with anxious depression are identified in a treatment study, they are less likely to respond to the index treatment and are frequently excluded from some treatment trials,” he added.

Dr. Aaronson noted that previously reported outcomes from TMS for anxious depression have been “suggestive of efficacy but have not been well studied within a large cohort.” 

To investigate these issues, the current investigators turned to the NeuroStar Advanced Therapy System Clinical Outcomes Registry. It is the largest database of patients with difficult-to-treat depression, all of whom had undergone TMS.

This “extraordinary” database was able to provide previous insight into how often TMS works, whether some of the treatment parameters can be altered while still preserving efficacy, and whether bilateral TMS works better than unilateral TMS in patients with MDD, Dr. Aaronson said.

In the current study, researchers retrospectively analyzed data on 1,820 patients with MDD. All had completed the Patient Health Questinonaire–9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) at baseline and following at least one TMS intervention.

Most patients (n = 1,514) had anxious depression, defined as a baseline GAD-7 score of 10 or higher, and 306 had nonanxious depression, defined as a GAD-7 score below that threshold.

The investigators assessed the total sample of these patients who had been treated with any TMS protocol, as well as a subsample of patients (n = 625) who had been treated only with high-frequency left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (HF-LUL) stimulation.

Patients were also subdivided into intent-to-treat and Completer samples (n = 1,820 and 1,429, respectively).
 

Consistent effects

There was no difference in gender distribution between the anxious and nonanxious group.

However, the anxious group was significantly younger (by about 5 years), compared with the nonanxious group. They also reported higher severity of depressive symptoms at baseline, with PHQ-9 scores approximately 2.5 points higher.

This was a “notable finding, since the PHQ-9 does not contain items directly assessing anxiety,” the researchers wrote.

There were also differences between the groups in the type of TMS protocol they received, with exclusive HF-LUL more common in the nonanxious depression group compared with other types of TMS protocols or unclassified protocols in the anxious depression group.

“Anxiolytic and antidepressant effects were consistent across the [intent-to-treat] and completed samples and patients who received any TMS protocol or only HF-LUL TMS,” the investigators reported.

GAD-7 scores “decreased markedly” in the anxious depression group. GAD-7 response rates ranged from 47.8% to 60.6% and GAD-7 remission rates ranged from 26.4% to 38.0% (P < .0001 for both).

There were no between-group differences in PHQ-9 scores in the magnitude of change pre- to post treatment. The anxious group scored about 2.5 points higher both pre- and post treatment, compared with the anxious group – with an effect size for change ranging from 1.46 to 1.74 in the anxious group and from 1.66 to 1.95 in the nonanxious group.
 

Response, remission rates

Notably, the anxious and nonanxious groups both showed “marked antidepressant effects,” with response and remission rates in the anxious group ranging from 55.2% to 66.8% and from 24.0% to 33.2%, respectively.

However, response and remission rates were significantly higher in the nonanxious versus the anxious group.

“Thus, despite manifesting the same degree of change in the PHQ-9 scores, the higher baseline and post-TMS scores in the anxious group resulted in significantly lower response and remission rates,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that the difference in post-TMS adjusted means was “small” and the groups also “did not differ in the absolute extent of symptoms improvement after multivariate adjustment.”

The relationship changes in the GAD-7 and the PHQ-9 scores “covaried” for the total IT sample (r1818 = 0.69, P < .001), although the relation was more “robust” in the anxious depression group versus the nonanxious depression group (r1512 = .75 vs. r304 = 0.50; P < .001 for both).

“The anxious depressed folks were sicker and had higher scores on scales capturing the severity of their illness,” Dr. Aaronson said. However, their “outcomes were similar, taking into account the higher baseline scores which had the effect of lowering the percent of anxious participants who met response and remission criteria.”

He reported that the average decline in depression rating scale scores was not significantly different between the groups, and the decline in depression scores tracked similarly to the decline in anxiety scores, “meaning they strongly covaried.”

The authors noted that a limitation was that, although the data was prospectively gathered, the analyses were retrospective.
 

Settles the debate?

Commenting on the study, Shan Siddiqi, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said clinicians know that patients with comorbid anxiety are less likely to be referred for TMS, “probably because of the longstanding perception that TMS doesn’t work as well for them.”

courtesy Brigham and Women’s Medical Center

This perception “has persisted, despite several small studies to the contrary, perhaps because we know that these patients are less responsive to other treatments,” said Dr. Siddiqi, who is also director of psychiatric neuromodulation research at Brigham and Women’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics in Boston. He was not involved with the current research.

“This new study will hopefully settle that debate and let us move on to a new question: How do we optimize the treatment for this important patient population that has largely been excluded from many of our prior studies?”  

The NeuroStar Advanced Therapy System Clinical Outcomes Registry, analysis of the registry data, and the drafting of this manuscript were supported by Neuronetics Inc. Dr. Aaronson serves as a scientific adviser to Genomind, LivaNova, Neuronetics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Sage Therapeutics; and has received research support from Compass Pathways and Neuronetics. Dr. Siddiqi is a scientific consultant for Magnus Medical; a clinical consultant for Acacia Mental Health, Kaizen Brain Center, and Boston Precision Neurotherapeutics; and has received investigator-initiated research funding from Neuronetics and BrainsWay. He has also served as a speaker for BrainsWay and PsychU.org, owns stock in BrainsWay and Magnus Medical, and owns intellectual property involving the use of functional connectivity to target TMS.

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

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is associated with both anxiolytic and antidepressant effects in patients with anxious depression, new research suggests.

In an analysis of data from more than 1,800 patients with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD), more than 75% also had anxiety. Following TMS, those with anxious depression showed reductions from baseline of at least 50% on anxiety and depression scores.

In addition, the anxious and nonanxious groups had equivalent absolute improvement in scores measuring depression.

“The ultimate message is that TMS is quite effective in the more difficult-to-treat and more disabled group of anxious depressives,” coinvestigator Scott Aaronson, MD, chief science officer, Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics, and director of the Psychedelic Center of Excellence, Sheppard Pratt, Towson, Md., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Large cohort

Dr. Aaronson noted that between 50% and 75% of patients with depression also have significant anxiety symptoms.

“The presence of significant anxiety in a depressed person significantly increases depression symptom severity, functional impairment, chronicity, and suicidality,” he said.

In general, “when patients with anxious depression are identified in a treatment study, they are less likely to respond to the index treatment and are frequently excluded from some treatment trials,” he added.

Dr. Aaronson noted that previously reported outcomes from TMS for anxious depression have been “suggestive of efficacy but have not been well studied within a large cohort.” 

To investigate these issues, the current investigators turned to the NeuroStar Advanced Therapy System Clinical Outcomes Registry. It is the largest database of patients with difficult-to-treat depression, all of whom had undergone TMS.

This “extraordinary” database was able to provide previous insight into how often TMS works, whether some of the treatment parameters can be altered while still preserving efficacy, and whether bilateral TMS works better than unilateral TMS in patients with MDD, Dr. Aaronson said.

In the current study, researchers retrospectively analyzed data on 1,820 patients with MDD. All had completed the Patient Health Questinonaire–9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) at baseline and following at least one TMS intervention.

Most patients (n = 1,514) had anxious depression, defined as a baseline GAD-7 score of 10 or higher, and 306 had nonanxious depression, defined as a GAD-7 score below that threshold.

The investigators assessed the total sample of these patients who had been treated with any TMS protocol, as well as a subsample of patients (n = 625) who had been treated only with high-frequency left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (HF-LUL) stimulation.

Patients were also subdivided into intent-to-treat and Completer samples (n = 1,820 and 1,429, respectively).
 

Consistent effects

There was no difference in gender distribution between the anxious and nonanxious group.

However, the anxious group was significantly younger (by about 5 years), compared with the nonanxious group. They also reported higher severity of depressive symptoms at baseline, with PHQ-9 scores approximately 2.5 points higher.

This was a “notable finding, since the PHQ-9 does not contain items directly assessing anxiety,” the researchers wrote.

There were also differences between the groups in the type of TMS protocol they received, with exclusive HF-LUL more common in the nonanxious depression group compared with other types of TMS protocols or unclassified protocols in the anxious depression group.

“Anxiolytic and antidepressant effects were consistent across the [intent-to-treat] and completed samples and patients who received any TMS protocol or only HF-LUL TMS,” the investigators reported.

GAD-7 scores “decreased markedly” in the anxious depression group. GAD-7 response rates ranged from 47.8% to 60.6% and GAD-7 remission rates ranged from 26.4% to 38.0% (P < .0001 for both).

There were no between-group differences in PHQ-9 scores in the magnitude of change pre- to post treatment. The anxious group scored about 2.5 points higher both pre- and post treatment, compared with the anxious group – with an effect size for change ranging from 1.46 to 1.74 in the anxious group and from 1.66 to 1.95 in the nonanxious group.
 

Response, remission rates

Notably, the anxious and nonanxious groups both showed “marked antidepressant effects,” with response and remission rates in the anxious group ranging from 55.2% to 66.8% and from 24.0% to 33.2%, respectively.

However, response and remission rates were significantly higher in the nonanxious versus the anxious group.

“Thus, despite manifesting the same degree of change in the PHQ-9 scores, the higher baseline and post-TMS scores in the anxious group resulted in significantly lower response and remission rates,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that the difference in post-TMS adjusted means was “small” and the groups also “did not differ in the absolute extent of symptoms improvement after multivariate adjustment.”

The relationship changes in the GAD-7 and the PHQ-9 scores “covaried” for the total IT sample (r1818 = 0.69, P < .001), although the relation was more “robust” in the anxious depression group versus the nonanxious depression group (r1512 = .75 vs. r304 = 0.50; P < .001 for both).

“The anxious depressed folks were sicker and had higher scores on scales capturing the severity of their illness,” Dr. Aaronson said. However, their “outcomes were similar, taking into account the higher baseline scores which had the effect of lowering the percent of anxious participants who met response and remission criteria.”

He reported that the average decline in depression rating scale scores was not significantly different between the groups, and the decline in depression scores tracked similarly to the decline in anxiety scores, “meaning they strongly covaried.”

The authors noted that a limitation was that, although the data was prospectively gathered, the analyses were retrospective.
 

Settles the debate?

Commenting on the study, Shan Siddiqi, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said clinicians know that patients with comorbid anxiety are less likely to be referred for TMS, “probably because of the longstanding perception that TMS doesn’t work as well for them.”

courtesy Brigham and Women’s Medical Center

This perception “has persisted, despite several small studies to the contrary, perhaps because we know that these patients are less responsive to other treatments,” said Dr. Siddiqi, who is also director of psychiatric neuromodulation research at Brigham and Women’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics in Boston. He was not involved with the current research.

“This new study will hopefully settle that debate and let us move on to a new question: How do we optimize the treatment for this important patient population that has largely been excluded from many of our prior studies?”  

The NeuroStar Advanced Therapy System Clinical Outcomes Registry, analysis of the registry data, and the drafting of this manuscript were supported by Neuronetics Inc. Dr. Aaronson serves as a scientific adviser to Genomind, LivaNova, Neuronetics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Sage Therapeutics; and has received research support from Compass Pathways and Neuronetics. Dr. Siddiqi is a scientific consultant for Magnus Medical; a clinical consultant for Acacia Mental Health, Kaizen Brain Center, and Boston Precision Neurotherapeutics; and has received investigator-initiated research funding from Neuronetics and BrainsWay. He has also served as a speaker for BrainsWay and PsychU.org, owns stock in BrainsWay and Magnus Medical, and owns intellectual property involving the use of functional connectivity to target TMS.

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

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is associated with both anxiolytic and antidepressant effects in patients with anxious depression, new research suggests.

In an analysis of data from more than 1,800 patients with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD), more than 75% also had anxiety. Following TMS, those with anxious depression showed reductions from baseline of at least 50% on anxiety and depression scores.

In addition, the anxious and nonanxious groups had equivalent absolute improvement in scores measuring depression.

“The ultimate message is that TMS is quite effective in the more difficult-to-treat and more disabled group of anxious depressives,” coinvestigator Scott Aaronson, MD, chief science officer, Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics, and director of the Psychedelic Center of Excellence, Sheppard Pratt, Towson, Md., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Large cohort

Dr. Aaronson noted that between 50% and 75% of patients with depression also have significant anxiety symptoms.

“The presence of significant anxiety in a depressed person significantly increases depression symptom severity, functional impairment, chronicity, and suicidality,” he said.

In general, “when patients with anxious depression are identified in a treatment study, they are less likely to respond to the index treatment and are frequently excluded from some treatment trials,” he added.

Dr. Aaronson noted that previously reported outcomes from TMS for anxious depression have been “suggestive of efficacy but have not been well studied within a large cohort.” 

To investigate these issues, the current investigators turned to the NeuroStar Advanced Therapy System Clinical Outcomes Registry. It is the largest database of patients with difficult-to-treat depression, all of whom had undergone TMS.

This “extraordinary” database was able to provide previous insight into how often TMS works, whether some of the treatment parameters can be altered while still preserving efficacy, and whether bilateral TMS works better than unilateral TMS in patients with MDD, Dr. Aaronson said.

In the current study, researchers retrospectively analyzed data on 1,820 patients with MDD. All had completed the Patient Health Questinonaire–9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) at baseline and following at least one TMS intervention.

Most patients (n = 1,514) had anxious depression, defined as a baseline GAD-7 score of 10 or higher, and 306 had nonanxious depression, defined as a GAD-7 score below that threshold.

The investigators assessed the total sample of these patients who had been treated with any TMS protocol, as well as a subsample of patients (n = 625) who had been treated only with high-frequency left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (HF-LUL) stimulation.

Patients were also subdivided into intent-to-treat and Completer samples (n = 1,820 and 1,429, respectively).
 

Consistent effects

There was no difference in gender distribution between the anxious and nonanxious group.

However, the anxious group was significantly younger (by about 5 years), compared with the nonanxious group. They also reported higher severity of depressive symptoms at baseline, with PHQ-9 scores approximately 2.5 points higher.

This was a “notable finding, since the PHQ-9 does not contain items directly assessing anxiety,” the researchers wrote.

There were also differences between the groups in the type of TMS protocol they received, with exclusive HF-LUL more common in the nonanxious depression group compared with other types of TMS protocols or unclassified protocols in the anxious depression group.

“Anxiolytic and antidepressant effects were consistent across the [intent-to-treat] and completed samples and patients who received any TMS protocol or only HF-LUL TMS,” the investigators reported.

GAD-7 scores “decreased markedly” in the anxious depression group. GAD-7 response rates ranged from 47.8% to 60.6% and GAD-7 remission rates ranged from 26.4% to 38.0% (P < .0001 for both).

There were no between-group differences in PHQ-9 scores in the magnitude of change pre- to post treatment. The anxious group scored about 2.5 points higher both pre- and post treatment, compared with the anxious group – with an effect size for change ranging from 1.46 to 1.74 in the anxious group and from 1.66 to 1.95 in the nonanxious group.
 

Response, remission rates

Notably, the anxious and nonanxious groups both showed “marked antidepressant effects,” with response and remission rates in the anxious group ranging from 55.2% to 66.8% and from 24.0% to 33.2%, respectively.

However, response and remission rates were significantly higher in the nonanxious versus the anxious group.

“Thus, despite manifesting the same degree of change in the PHQ-9 scores, the higher baseline and post-TMS scores in the anxious group resulted in significantly lower response and remission rates,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that the difference in post-TMS adjusted means was “small” and the groups also “did not differ in the absolute extent of symptoms improvement after multivariate adjustment.”

The relationship changes in the GAD-7 and the PHQ-9 scores “covaried” for the total IT sample (r1818 = 0.69, P < .001), although the relation was more “robust” in the anxious depression group versus the nonanxious depression group (r1512 = .75 vs. r304 = 0.50; P < .001 for both).

“The anxious depressed folks were sicker and had higher scores on scales capturing the severity of their illness,” Dr. Aaronson said. However, their “outcomes were similar, taking into account the higher baseline scores which had the effect of lowering the percent of anxious participants who met response and remission criteria.”

He reported that the average decline in depression rating scale scores was not significantly different between the groups, and the decline in depression scores tracked similarly to the decline in anxiety scores, “meaning they strongly covaried.”

The authors noted that a limitation was that, although the data was prospectively gathered, the analyses were retrospective.
 

Settles the debate?

Commenting on the study, Shan Siddiqi, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said clinicians know that patients with comorbid anxiety are less likely to be referred for TMS, “probably because of the longstanding perception that TMS doesn’t work as well for them.”

courtesy Brigham and Women’s Medical Center

This perception “has persisted, despite several small studies to the contrary, perhaps because we know that these patients are less responsive to other treatments,” said Dr. Siddiqi, who is also director of psychiatric neuromodulation research at Brigham and Women’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics in Boston. He was not involved with the current research.

“This new study will hopefully settle that debate and let us move on to a new question: How do we optimize the treatment for this important patient population that has largely been excluded from many of our prior studies?”  

The NeuroStar Advanced Therapy System Clinical Outcomes Registry, analysis of the registry data, and the drafting of this manuscript were supported by Neuronetics Inc. Dr. Aaronson serves as a scientific adviser to Genomind, LivaNova, Neuronetics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Sage Therapeutics; and has received research support from Compass Pathways and Neuronetics. Dr. Siddiqi is a scientific consultant for Magnus Medical; a clinical consultant for Acacia Mental Health, Kaizen Brain Center, and Boston Precision Neurotherapeutics; and has received investigator-initiated research funding from Neuronetics and BrainsWay. He has also served as a speaker for BrainsWay and PsychU.org, owns stock in BrainsWay and Magnus Medical, and owns intellectual property involving the use of functional connectivity to target TMS.

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

Eight Navy sailors have died by suicide in less than a year. The most recent death was on January 23. Three sailors who died in the past 2 months have more than suicide in common: They were all stationed aboard Navy aircraft carriers undergoing refits: the USS George Washington and the USS Theodore Roosevelt. 

These deaths come only a month after the Navy released a report on 3 deaths by suicide on the George Washington, all of which happened in a single week last April. Military.com reported that the ship’s commander, Capt. Brent Gaut, had said 10 sailors had died by suicide in under a year. 

In November and December 2022, at least 4 sailors assigned to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center (MARMC) in Virginia died by suicide, multiplying concerns about a fleetwide mental health crisis. “I was inundated with the amount of hopelessness at that command,” Kayla Arestivo, a counselor brought in to help, told nbcnews.com. Sailors spoke of being overworked, undervalued, and not getting the mental health help they needed. “Part of it is toxic leadership. The sailors immediately pointed that out,” Arestivo said. 

She noted that many of the people assigned to MARMC are on limited duty due to mental or physical disabilities or have personal stressors that prevent them from full unrestricted duty. Electronics technician Kody Lee Decker, for instance, was on limited duty due to mental health issues when he died by suicide on October 29, 2022, according to a friend. Those people, Arestivo suggested, should have been provided help earlier.

Disabilities are not the only potential risk factors, though. Sailors living aboard the George Washington from April 2021 until April 2022 reported difficult and noisy living conditions with shortages of power, running water, and heat, and poor ventilation. Sailors would sleep in their cars or rent rooms in town rather than stay on board. 

The George Washington has been docked at Newport News [Virginia] Shipbuilding for a major overhaul and repairs since 2017 (expected to extend into 2023, nearly 2 years later than the original deadline). The Navy investigation acknowledged “overwhelming” stress and noted that the living conditions created by an “intense and complex” maintenance process were posing hardships for the sailors, including sleep deprivation. (The Theodore Roosevelt has been at the Puget Sound shipyard since August 2021, although none of the sailors live onboard.)

However, the Navy investigation concluded that the 3 April suicide deaths were not directly connected to living conditions. According to the US Fleet Forces Command, “each Sailor was experiencing unique and individualized life stressors, which were contributing factors leading to their deaths.” The 3 suicide deaths were deemed independent events, with no direct correlation among them.

But the report also charged that leaders were oblivious to the problems, and the mental health care the Navy offered was insufficient: “Multiple command members knew or should have known that MASR Mitchell-Sandor [who died by suicide] was experiencing displeasure with Navy life and could have intervened to help him better cope or seek out available support services.”

In the official response to the Navy report, Rear Adm. John Meier, Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic, noted that he had convened a “second and broader investigation” to assess quality of life issues and other systemic issues for aircraft carriers undergoing extensive maintenance or construction in the Newport News shipyard. “It is safe to say,” he wrote, that “generations of Navy leaders had become accustomed to the reduced quality of life in the shipyard, and accepted the status quo as par for the course…” 

He agreed that the general stress of the environment was not the root cause of the deaths but was “certainly a contributing factor” in at least one case. The report, he said, placed too much emphasis on the sailor’s personal decisions to not improve his own living conditions (he was offered the opportunity to change berthing) and thus placed “too much burden on him for his situation.” Senior enlisted leadership knew that the sailor was sleeping in his car and counseled him, but Meier found no evidence of follow-through. More senior sailors or an assigned mentor should have been there to support the sailor, Meier said, and help him make decisions that were in his best interests. “This was a time for intrusive leadership.”

Adm. Daryl Caudle, Commander, US Fleet Forces Command, advised revising the wording in the report to say “No one at the command knew, or had a reason to know, of MASR [Xavier] Mitchell-Sandor’s previous suicidal ideations.” He also advised modifying the wording with: “Had the Navy been aware of MASR Mitchell-Sandor’s previous suicidal ideations, existing programs and procedures were in place that make it likely that he would have been placed in a ‘do not arm’ status and received necessary care.”

Vice Admiral Kenneth Whitesell, Commander, Naval Air Force, US Pacific Fleet, also endorsed the report findings with some revisions, saying, “We cannot assume these issues are isolated to a single ship, or to shipyards alone. Rather, these 3 tragic losses brought to light the ultimate need to remain laser-focused on providing care and guidance to our sailors.”

The Navy is providing mental health support to sailors, including an embedded mental health team and 2 civilian resiliency counselors who work on the George Washington. According to an action update in the report, Commander, Naval Air Force directed all CVNs and Naval Aviation Units to have a minimum of 1 safeTALK (Suicide Alertness For Everyone; Tell, Ask, Listen and KeepSafe) trained member onboard, and 2 to 3 safeTALK trained personnel in each division no later than December 31, 2022. 

At MARMC, Arestivo was brought in for several mandatory suicide prevention sessions but without systemic changes, she said, “We’re putting Band-Aids on bullet holes.”

She said she told MARMC’s commanding officer, “You will have another one.” The fourth sailor died by suicide 10 days later.

If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline or contact the Veterans Crisis Line. 

Eight Navy sailors have died by suicide in less than a year. The most recent death was on January 23. Three sailors who died in the past 2 months have more than suicide in common: They were all stationed aboard Navy aircraft carriers undergoing refits: the USS George Washington and the USS Theodore Roosevelt. 

These deaths come only a month after the Navy released a report on 3 deaths by suicide on the George Washington, all of which happened in a single week last April. Military.com reported that the ship’s commander, Capt. Brent Gaut, had said 10 sailors had died by suicide in under a year. 

In November and December 2022, at least 4 sailors assigned to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center (MARMC) in Virginia died by suicide, multiplying concerns about a fleetwide mental health crisis. “I was inundated with the amount of hopelessness at that command,” Kayla Arestivo, a counselor brought in to help, told nbcnews.com. Sailors spoke of being overworked, undervalued, and not getting the mental health help they needed. “Part of it is toxic leadership. The sailors immediately pointed that out,” Arestivo said. 

She noted that many of the people assigned to MARMC are on limited duty due to mental or physical disabilities or have personal stressors that prevent them from full unrestricted duty. Electronics technician Kody Lee Decker, for instance, was on limited duty due to mental health issues when he died by suicide on October 29, 2022, according to a friend. Those people, Arestivo suggested, should have been provided help earlier.

Disabilities are not the only potential risk factors, though. Sailors living aboard the George Washington from April 2021 until April 2022 reported difficult and noisy living conditions with shortages of power, running water, and heat, and poor ventilation. Sailors would sleep in their cars or rent rooms in town rather than stay on board. 

The George Washington has been docked at Newport News [Virginia] Shipbuilding for a major overhaul and repairs since 2017 (expected to extend into 2023, nearly 2 years later than the original deadline). The Navy investigation acknowledged “overwhelming” stress and noted that the living conditions created by an “intense and complex” maintenance process were posing hardships for the sailors, including sleep deprivation. (The Theodore Roosevelt has been at the Puget Sound shipyard since August 2021, although none of the sailors live onboard.)

However, the Navy investigation concluded that the 3 April suicide deaths were not directly connected to living conditions. According to the US Fleet Forces Command, “each Sailor was experiencing unique and individualized life stressors, which were contributing factors leading to their deaths.” The 3 suicide deaths were deemed independent events, with no direct correlation among them.

But the report also charged that leaders were oblivious to the problems, and the mental health care the Navy offered was insufficient: “Multiple command members knew or should have known that MASR Mitchell-Sandor [who died by suicide] was experiencing displeasure with Navy life and could have intervened to help him better cope or seek out available support services.”

In the official response to the Navy report, Rear Adm. John Meier, Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic, noted that he had convened a “second and broader investigation” to assess quality of life issues and other systemic issues for aircraft carriers undergoing extensive maintenance or construction in the Newport News shipyard. “It is safe to say,” he wrote, that “generations of Navy leaders had become accustomed to the reduced quality of life in the shipyard, and accepted the status quo as par for the course…” 

He agreed that the general stress of the environment was not the root cause of the deaths but was “certainly a contributing factor” in at least one case. The report, he said, placed too much emphasis on the sailor’s personal decisions to not improve his own living conditions (he was offered the opportunity to change berthing) and thus placed “too much burden on him for his situation.” Senior enlisted leadership knew that the sailor was sleeping in his car and counseled him, but Meier found no evidence of follow-through. More senior sailors or an assigned mentor should have been there to support the sailor, Meier said, and help him make decisions that were in his best interests. “This was a time for intrusive leadership.”

Adm. Daryl Caudle, Commander, US Fleet Forces Command, advised revising the wording in the report to say “No one at the command knew, or had a reason to know, of MASR [Xavier] Mitchell-Sandor’s previous suicidal ideations.” He also advised modifying the wording with: “Had the Navy been aware of MASR Mitchell-Sandor’s previous suicidal ideations, existing programs and procedures were in place that make it likely that he would have been placed in a ‘do not arm’ status and received necessary care.”

Vice Admiral Kenneth Whitesell, Commander, Naval Air Force, US Pacific Fleet, also endorsed the report findings with some revisions, saying, “We cannot assume these issues are isolated to a single ship, or to shipyards alone. Rather, these 3 tragic losses brought to light the ultimate need to remain laser-focused on providing care and guidance to our sailors.”

The Navy is providing mental health support to sailors, including an embedded mental health team and 2 civilian resiliency counselors who work on the George Washington. According to an action update in the report, Commander, Naval Air Force directed all CVNs and Naval Aviation Units to have a minimum of 1 safeTALK (Suicide Alertness For Everyone; Tell, Ask, Listen and KeepSafe) trained member onboard, and 2 to 3 safeTALK trained personnel in each division no later than December 31, 2022. 

At MARMC, Arestivo was brought in for several mandatory suicide prevention sessions but without systemic changes, she said, “We’re putting Band-Aids on bullet holes.”

She said she told MARMC’s commanding officer, “You will have another one.” The fourth sailor died by suicide 10 days later.

If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline or contact the Veterans Crisis Line. 

Eight Navy sailors have died by suicide in less than a year. The most recent death was on January 23. Three sailors who died in the past 2 months have more than suicide in common: They were all stationed aboard Navy aircraft carriers undergoing refits: the USS George Washington and the USS Theodore Roosevelt. 

These deaths come only a month after the Navy released a report on 3 deaths by suicide on the George Washington, all of which happened in a single week last April. Military.com reported that the ship’s commander, Capt. Brent Gaut, had said 10 sailors had died by suicide in under a year. 

In November and December 2022, at least 4 sailors assigned to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center (MARMC) in Virginia died by suicide, multiplying concerns about a fleetwide mental health crisis. “I was inundated with the amount of hopelessness at that command,” Kayla Arestivo, a counselor brought in to help, told nbcnews.com. Sailors spoke of being overworked, undervalued, and not getting the mental health help they needed. “Part of it is toxic leadership. The sailors immediately pointed that out,” Arestivo said. 

She noted that many of the people assigned to MARMC are on limited duty due to mental or physical disabilities or have personal stressors that prevent them from full unrestricted duty. Electronics technician Kody Lee Decker, for instance, was on limited duty due to mental health issues when he died by suicide on October 29, 2022, according to a friend. Those people, Arestivo suggested, should have been provided help earlier.

Disabilities are not the only potential risk factors, though. Sailors living aboard the George Washington from April 2021 until April 2022 reported difficult and noisy living conditions with shortages of power, running water, and heat, and poor ventilation. Sailors would sleep in their cars or rent rooms in town rather than stay on board. 

The George Washington has been docked at Newport News [Virginia] Shipbuilding for a major overhaul and repairs since 2017 (expected to extend into 2023, nearly 2 years later than the original deadline). The Navy investigation acknowledged “overwhelming” stress and noted that the living conditions created by an “intense and complex” maintenance process were posing hardships for the sailors, including sleep deprivation. (The Theodore Roosevelt has been at the Puget Sound shipyard since August 2021, although none of the sailors live onboard.)

However, the Navy investigation concluded that the 3 April suicide deaths were not directly connected to living conditions. According to the US Fleet Forces Command, “each Sailor was experiencing unique and individualized life stressors, which were contributing factors leading to their deaths.” The 3 suicide deaths were deemed independent events, with no direct correlation among them.

But the report also charged that leaders were oblivious to the problems, and the mental health care the Navy offered was insufficient: “Multiple command members knew or should have known that MASR Mitchell-Sandor [who died by suicide] was experiencing displeasure with Navy life and could have intervened to help him better cope or seek out available support services.”

In the official response to the Navy report, Rear Adm. John Meier, Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic, noted that he had convened a “second and broader investigation” to assess quality of life issues and other systemic issues for aircraft carriers undergoing extensive maintenance or construction in the Newport News shipyard. “It is safe to say,” he wrote, that “generations of Navy leaders had become accustomed to the reduced quality of life in the shipyard, and accepted the status quo as par for the course…” 

He agreed that the general stress of the environment was not the root cause of the deaths but was “certainly a contributing factor” in at least one case. The report, he said, placed too much emphasis on the sailor’s personal decisions to not improve his own living conditions (he was offered the opportunity to change berthing) and thus placed “too much burden on him for his situation.” Senior enlisted leadership knew that the sailor was sleeping in his car and counseled him, but Meier found no evidence of follow-through. More senior sailors or an assigned mentor should have been there to support the sailor, Meier said, and help him make decisions that were in his best interests. “This was a time for intrusive leadership.”

Adm. Daryl Caudle, Commander, US Fleet Forces Command, advised revising the wording in the report to say “No one at the command knew, or had a reason to know, of MASR [Xavier] Mitchell-Sandor’s previous suicidal ideations.” He also advised modifying the wording with: “Had the Navy been aware of MASR Mitchell-Sandor’s previous suicidal ideations, existing programs and procedures were in place that make it likely that he would have been placed in a ‘do not arm’ status and received necessary care.”

Vice Admiral Kenneth Whitesell, Commander, Naval Air Force, US Pacific Fleet, also endorsed the report findings with some revisions, saying, “We cannot assume these issues are isolated to a single ship, or to shipyards alone. Rather, these 3 tragic losses brought to light the ultimate need to remain laser-focused on providing care and guidance to our sailors.”

The Navy is providing mental health support to sailors, including an embedded mental health team and 2 civilian resiliency counselors who work on the George Washington. According to an action update in the report, Commander, Naval Air Force directed all CVNs and Naval Aviation Units to have a minimum of 1 safeTALK (Suicide Alertness For Everyone; Tell, Ask, Listen and KeepSafe) trained member onboard, and 2 to 3 safeTALK trained personnel in each division no later than December 31, 2022. 

At MARMC, Arestivo was brought in for several mandatory suicide prevention sessions but without systemic changes, she said, “We’re putting Band-Aids on bullet holes.”

She said she told MARMC’s commanding officer, “You will have another one.” The fourth sailor died by suicide 10 days later.

If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline or contact the Veterans Crisis Line. 

Cases of nonventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) declined by 32% between 2015 and 2020. Then, of course, COVID-19 changed the trajectory and rates began to rise. After February 2020, the incidence rate rose by 25% among veterans without COVID-19—but by 108% among those who had COVID-19. 

Those are findings from a study by researchers at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado. They studied data on 1,567,275 veterans admitted to 135 VA facilities in acute care settings between October 2015 and March 2021, with a stay of at least 48 hours.

They say, to their knowledge, this is the first published report of changes in NV-HAP risk associated with the onset of COVID-19 among all hospitalized veterans in a national health care system.

The questions for the researchers were: What drove the increase in NV-HAP rates? Was it the elevated risk among veterans with COVID-19, reduced NV-HAP prevention measures during the extreme pandemic-related stress on the system, and/or increased patient acuity among hospitalized veterans? 

They concluded that the observed increase in NV-HAP risk among all patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is “likely multifactorial.” The stresses on clinical workload may have hampered fundamental preventive nursing care, such as early mobility programs, consistent oral care, and aspiration precautions. The researchers also cite barriers including wearing personal protective equipment, which affected communication and the ability to get needed supplies to the bedside without cross-contamination.

Among patients with COVID-19 infections, the greater NV-HAP risk could be due to changes in the lower respiratory tract microbiome, disruption of the immune response, and synergism seen with COVID-19 infection. Moreover, they note, placing patients in a prone position to improve oxygenation might have raised the risk of NV-HAP.

The hospitalized veterans in the study also had a high burden of clinical comorbidities. Those with COVID-19 were more likely to have documented diagnosis of dementia in the previous year, compared with COVID-19-negative veterans or those hospitalized before the pandemic began. The researchers point out that dementia increased the risk of microaspiration, which can lead to secondary bacterial pneumonia.

In addition to reinforcing prevention efforts, the researchers suggest that NV-HAP monitoring via automated electronic surveillance could “serve as a cornerstone of a strong infection prevention program.” A system like that, installed before the pandemic, they say, might have identified the NV-HAP risk sooner. 

Most importantly, they add, strategies to reduce NV-HAP risk “should be designed with resilience to significant system stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic.” 

Cases of nonventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) declined by 32% between 2015 and 2020. Then, of course, COVID-19 changed the trajectory and rates began to rise. After February 2020, the incidence rate rose by 25% among veterans without COVID-19—but by 108% among those who had COVID-19. 

Those are findings from a study by researchers at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado. They studied data on 1,567,275 veterans admitted to 135 VA facilities in acute care settings between October 2015 and March 2021, with a stay of at least 48 hours.

They say, to their knowledge, this is the first published report of changes in NV-HAP risk associated with the onset of COVID-19 among all hospitalized veterans in a national health care system.

The questions for the researchers were: What drove the increase in NV-HAP rates? Was it the elevated risk among veterans with COVID-19, reduced NV-HAP prevention measures during the extreme pandemic-related stress on the system, and/or increased patient acuity among hospitalized veterans? 

They concluded that the observed increase in NV-HAP risk among all patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is “likely multifactorial.” The stresses on clinical workload may have hampered fundamental preventive nursing care, such as early mobility programs, consistent oral care, and aspiration precautions. The researchers also cite barriers including wearing personal protective equipment, which affected communication and the ability to get needed supplies to the bedside without cross-contamination.

Among patients with COVID-19 infections, the greater NV-HAP risk could be due to changes in the lower respiratory tract microbiome, disruption of the immune response, and synergism seen with COVID-19 infection. Moreover, they note, placing patients in a prone position to improve oxygenation might have raised the risk of NV-HAP.

The hospitalized veterans in the study also had a high burden of clinical comorbidities. Those with COVID-19 were more likely to have documented diagnosis of dementia in the previous year, compared with COVID-19-negative veterans or those hospitalized before the pandemic began. The researchers point out that dementia increased the risk of microaspiration, which can lead to secondary bacterial pneumonia.

In addition to reinforcing prevention efforts, the researchers suggest that NV-HAP monitoring via automated electronic surveillance could “serve as a cornerstone of a strong infection prevention program.” A system like that, installed before the pandemic, they say, might have identified the NV-HAP risk sooner. 

Most importantly, they add, strategies to reduce NV-HAP risk “should be designed with resilience to significant system stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic.” 

Cases of nonventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) declined by 32% between 2015 and 2020. Then, of course, COVID-19 changed the trajectory and rates began to rise. After February 2020, the incidence rate rose by 25% among veterans without COVID-19—but by 108% among those who had COVID-19. 

Those are findings from a study by researchers at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado. They studied data on 1,567,275 veterans admitted to 135 VA facilities in acute care settings between October 2015 and March 2021, with a stay of at least 48 hours.

They say, to their knowledge, this is the first published report of changes in NV-HAP risk associated with the onset of COVID-19 among all hospitalized veterans in a national health care system.

The questions for the researchers were: What drove the increase in NV-HAP rates? Was it the elevated risk among veterans with COVID-19, reduced NV-HAP prevention measures during the extreme pandemic-related stress on the system, and/or increased patient acuity among hospitalized veterans? 

They concluded that the observed increase in NV-HAP risk among all patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is “likely multifactorial.” The stresses on clinical workload may have hampered fundamental preventive nursing care, such as early mobility programs, consistent oral care, and aspiration precautions. The researchers also cite barriers including wearing personal protective equipment, which affected communication and the ability to get needed supplies to the bedside without cross-contamination.

Among patients with COVID-19 infections, the greater NV-HAP risk could be due to changes in the lower respiratory tract microbiome, disruption of the immune response, and synergism seen with COVID-19 infection. Moreover, they note, placing patients in a prone position to improve oxygenation might have raised the risk of NV-HAP.

The hospitalized veterans in the study also had a high burden of clinical comorbidities. Those with COVID-19 were more likely to have documented diagnosis of dementia in the previous year, compared with COVID-19-negative veterans or those hospitalized before the pandemic began. The researchers point out that dementia increased the risk of microaspiration, which can lead to secondary bacterial pneumonia.

In addition to reinforcing prevention efforts, the researchers suggest that NV-HAP monitoring via automated electronic surveillance could “serve as a cornerstone of a strong infection prevention program.” A system like that, installed before the pandemic, they say, might have identified the NV-HAP risk sooner. 

Most importantly, they add, strategies to reduce NV-HAP risk “should be designed with resilience to significant system stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic.” 

After more than 5 decades of trying, the drug industry is on the verge of providing effective immunizations against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.

But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.

Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.

The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.

But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.

Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.

Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.

Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.

After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.

Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.

If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.

Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.

While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.

A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.

Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”

Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.

New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.

Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.

On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.

While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

After more than 5 decades of trying, the drug industry is on the verge of providing effective immunizations against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.

But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.

Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.

The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.

But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.

Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.

Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.

Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.

After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.

Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.

If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.

Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.

While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.

A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.

Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”

Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.

New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.

Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.

On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.

While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

After more than 5 decades of trying, the drug industry is on the verge of providing effective immunizations against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.

But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.

Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.

The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.

But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.

Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.

Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.

Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.

After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.

Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.

If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.

Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.

While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.

A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.

Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”

Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.

New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.

Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.

On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.

While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

A 27-gene immuno-oncology assay appears to provide useful information about whether patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) could benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy despite their poor status, researchers reported.

Positive findings on the test, known as DetermaIO, were “associated with efficacy of response to ICI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients,” Matthew G. Varga, PhD, manager of scientific affairs at Oncocyte, said in an interview. “These data suggest that DetermaIO warrants further study in poor performance status patients as it has the potential to identify likely responders to ICI therapy.”

Oncocyte, which is developing the test, presented the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

According to Dr. Varga, “DetermaIO is an RT-qPCR test that can be applied to FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] tissue specimens to quantify the relative gene expression of 27 genes and subsequently applies our proprietary algorithm to generate an IO score based on the gene expression profile. The DetermaIO score is a binary IO+ or IO– score, representing likely responder or nonresponder, respectively.”

The test was originally developed for triple negative breast cancer, Dr. Varga said, and it’s been validated in non–small cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

For the study, the researchers retrospectively tracked associations between DetermaIO score and either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 147 patients in Canada with NSCLC who were treated with ICI monotherapy. All had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.

Overall, outcomes were poor: The median survival was 12.7 months, and median PFS was 7.0 months. These outcomes were even worse in those who underwent therapy as a second- line treatment: The median survival was 9.7 months, and median PFS was 4.4 months.

“DetermaIO was significantly associated with PFS at hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.32-0.94, P = .028. In our analyses, a hazard ratio less than 1 suggests lower risk – i.e, that DetermaIO+ patients have lower risk of an event – death or progression – compared to a DetermaIO– patient,” Dr. Varga said. “The association for overall survival was not statistically significant, but it was suggestive of clinically meaningful benefit.”

He added that “we could identify likely responders from nonresponders, suggesting that the DetermaIO score adds both independent and incremental data to the existing gold standard biomarker. The objective response rate for all first-line patients – n = 78 – was 44.9%. Twenty-two DetermaIO– tumors had a 23% response rate (5 partial responses) whereas of the 56 DetermaIO+ patients, the response rate was 54% (2 complete response and 28 partial responses).”

A score on the test, he said, was not associated with OS or PFS in patients who received second-line or later treatment.

The study was not designed to evaluate the predictive power of the test. “For a biomarker to be defined as predictive requires a formal test of interaction between a treatment group (ICI monotherapy, for example) vs. a control group (chemo-only or other regimen),” Dr. Varga explained. “In our analysis, there was no group of patients who did not receive ICI monotherapy. Thus a test for interaction and a predictive claim cannot be made.”

The test is available for at no cost via an early access program, Dr. Varga said, and Oncocyte is getting ready to seek Medicare coverage. The ultimate cost of the test, he said, is unknown.

Oncocyte funded this study. Dr. Varga and several other study authors are Oncocyte employees, and another author is a paid consultant to the company.

A 27-gene immuno-oncology assay appears to provide useful information about whether patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) could benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy despite their poor status, researchers reported.

Positive findings on the test, known as DetermaIO, were “associated with efficacy of response to ICI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients,” Matthew G. Varga, PhD, manager of scientific affairs at Oncocyte, said in an interview. “These data suggest that DetermaIO warrants further study in poor performance status patients as it has the potential to identify likely responders to ICI therapy.”

Oncocyte, which is developing the test, presented the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

According to Dr. Varga, “DetermaIO is an RT-qPCR test that can be applied to FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] tissue specimens to quantify the relative gene expression of 27 genes and subsequently applies our proprietary algorithm to generate an IO score based on the gene expression profile. The DetermaIO score is a binary IO+ or IO– score, representing likely responder or nonresponder, respectively.”

The test was originally developed for triple negative breast cancer, Dr. Varga said, and it’s been validated in non–small cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

For the study, the researchers retrospectively tracked associations between DetermaIO score and either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 147 patients in Canada with NSCLC who were treated with ICI monotherapy. All had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.

Overall, outcomes were poor: The median survival was 12.7 months, and median PFS was 7.0 months. These outcomes were even worse in those who underwent therapy as a second- line treatment: The median survival was 9.7 months, and median PFS was 4.4 months.

“DetermaIO was significantly associated with PFS at hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.32-0.94, P = .028. In our analyses, a hazard ratio less than 1 suggests lower risk – i.e, that DetermaIO+ patients have lower risk of an event – death or progression – compared to a DetermaIO– patient,” Dr. Varga said. “The association for overall survival was not statistically significant, but it was suggestive of clinically meaningful benefit.”

He added that “we could identify likely responders from nonresponders, suggesting that the DetermaIO score adds both independent and incremental data to the existing gold standard biomarker. The objective response rate for all first-line patients – n = 78 – was 44.9%. Twenty-two DetermaIO– tumors had a 23% response rate (5 partial responses) whereas of the 56 DetermaIO+ patients, the response rate was 54% (2 complete response and 28 partial responses).”

A score on the test, he said, was not associated with OS or PFS in patients who received second-line or later treatment.

The study was not designed to evaluate the predictive power of the test. “For a biomarker to be defined as predictive requires a formal test of interaction between a treatment group (ICI monotherapy, for example) vs. a control group (chemo-only or other regimen),” Dr. Varga explained. “In our analysis, there was no group of patients who did not receive ICI monotherapy. Thus a test for interaction and a predictive claim cannot be made.”

The test is available for at no cost via an early access program, Dr. Varga said, and Oncocyte is getting ready to seek Medicare coverage. The ultimate cost of the test, he said, is unknown.

Oncocyte funded this study. Dr. Varga and several other study authors are Oncocyte employees, and another author is a paid consultant to the company.

A 27-gene immuno-oncology assay appears to provide useful information about whether patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) could benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy despite their poor status, researchers reported.

Positive findings on the test, known as DetermaIO, were “associated with efficacy of response to ICI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients,” Matthew G. Varga, PhD, manager of scientific affairs at Oncocyte, said in an interview. “These data suggest that DetermaIO warrants further study in poor performance status patients as it has the potential to identify likely responders to ICI therapy.”

Oncocyte, which is developing the test, presented the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

According to Dr. Varga, “DetermaIO is an RT-qPCR test that can be applied to FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] tissue specimens to quantify the relative gene expression of 27 genes and subsequently applies our proprietary algorithm to generate an IO score based on the gene expression profile. The DetermaIO score is a binary IO+ or IO– score, representing likely responder or nonresponder, respectively.”

The test was originally developed for triple negative breast cancer, Dr. Varga said, and it’s been validated in non–small cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

For the study, the researchers retrospectively tracked associations between DetermaIO score and either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 147 patients in Canada with NSCLC who were treated with ICI monotherapy. All had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.

Overall, outcomes were poor: The median survival was 12.7 months, and median PFS was 7.0 months. These outcomes were even worse in those who underwent therapy as a second- line treatment: The median survival was 9.7 months, and median PFS was 4.4 months.

“DetermaIO was significantly associated with PFS at hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.32-0.94, P = .028. In our analyses, a hazard ratio less than 1 suggests lower risk – i.e, that DetermaIO+ patients have lower risk of an event – death or progression – compared to a DetermaIO– patient,” Dr. Varga said. “The association for overall survival was not statistically significant, but it was suggestive of clinically meaningful benefit.”

He added that “we could identify likely responders from nonresponders, suggesting that the DetermaIO score adds both independent and incremental data to the existing gold standard biomarker. The objective response rate for all first-line patients – n = 78 – was 44.9%. Twenty-two DetermaIO– tumors had a 23% response rate (5 partial responses) whereas of the 56 DetermaIO+ patients, the response rate was 54% (2 complete response and 28 partial responses).”

A score on the test, he said, was not associated with OS or PFS in patients who received second-line or later treatment.

The study was not designed to evaluate the predictive power of the test. “For a biomarker to be defined as predictive requires a formal test of interaction between a treatment group (ICI monotherapy, for example) vs. a control group (chemo-only or other regimen),” Dr. Varga explained. “In our analysis, there was no group of patients who did not receive ICI monotherapy. Thus a test for interaction and a predictive claim cannot be made.”

The test is available for at no cost via an early access program, Dr. Varga said, and Oncocyte is getting ready to seek Medicare coverage. The ultimate cost of the test, he said, is unknown.

Oncocyte funded this study. Dr. Varga and several other study authors are Oncocyte employees, and another author is a paid consultant to the company.

A survey of physicians treating breast cancer patients finds that many use diagnostic mammograms for surveillance rather than screening mammograms, despite lack of evidence for a clinical difference.

Existing guidelines offer little help, according to Pavani Chalasani, MD, MPH, who presented the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “They just say [do an] annual mammogram, but they don’t say, ‘Do we need to do screening? Do we need to do breast MRIs?’”

Her personal experience also reflected a general confusion. “I asked my colleagues and got different answers from seven colleagues,” said Dr. Chalasani, who is an oncologist at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson.

She noted that diagnostic mammograms are generally similar to screening mammograms, but the radiologist is viewing the images in real time and can take additional views as needed while the patient is still present. “That is the biggest difference,” said Dr. Chalasani. No studies have been conducted to determine which method produces better results.

To get a snapshot of current practice, she and her colleagues developed a survey, which the American Society of Clinical Oncology sent to 1,000 randomly selected members between Oct. 19 and Nov. 22, 2021. 244 individuals responded; 93.5% were physicians, and half identified as female. A total of 174 respondents were medical oncologists, 31 were radiation oncologists, and 20 were surgical oncologists. The imbalance among respondents is a limitation of the study. That “may or may not be reflective of our real-time practices (among surgeons), but we do think that since a lot of times patients are seen by medical oncologists, there could be overlap,” said Dr. Chalasani.

About 50% of respondents said that they use breast MRI in the diagnosis of 25% or fewer patients. Approximately 64% of respondents said they used diagnostic mammograms versus about 31% who used imaging mammograms at first imaging. About 53% said they ordered mammograms within the first 6 months after treatment.

38% of those who ordered diagnostic mammograms for surveillance used it for 3-5 years, while 29% continued it for 5 years or more. One-quarter employed additional imaging during follow-up, most commonly breast ultrasound. About 65% said they had no stop date for screening mammograms, as long as the patient remained healthy. The choice of screening or diagnostic mammography was about 50:50, though about 55% said they use screening mammography for patients 80 years of age or older.

Dr. Chalasani pointed out that both screening and diagnostic mammograms provide similar imaging quality. Screening mammograms are completely covered by insurance, while diagnostic mammograms typically require a copay. “We’re doing this [diagnostic mammography] with no guidelines, but there is this out of pocket cost, without knowing if it’s the right thing to do,” she said.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines indicate that diagnostic mammograms can be conducted for 5 years after a ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis, but it doesn’t provide guidance for invasive cancers. Some past studies suggested that doing diagnostic mammograms for 3 years may increase diagnosis, but it isn’t clear if any such advantage would actually result in a clinical difference, according to Dr. Chalasani. “With the treatments we have, we still might cure [the cancer]. So what endpoints are we looking for? Are we changing care to add on toxicity to the patient, and stress to the patient and also for the health care system?”

She hopes that physicians will look at the results and understand that diagnostic mammograms, while they intuitively feel superior, are not supported by guidelines, and patients must incur an extra cost.

Her team also plans to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic mammograms.

Dr. Chalasani has no relevant financial disclosures.

A survey of physicians treating breast cancer patients finds that many use diagnostic mammograms for surveillance rather than screening mammograms, despite lack of evidence for a clinical difference.

Existing guidelines offer little help, according to Pavani Chalasani, MD, MPH, who presented the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “They just say [do an] annual mammogram, but they don’t say, ‘Do we need to do screening? Do we need to do breast MRIs?’”

Her personal experience also reflected a general confusion. “I asked my colleagues and got different answers from seven colleagues,” said Dr. Chalasani, who is an oncologist at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson.

She noted that diagnostic mammograms are generally similar to screening mammograms, but the radiologist is viewing the images in real time and can take additional views as needed while the patient is still present. “That is the biggest difference,” said Dr. Chalasani. No studies have been conducted to determine which method produces better results.

To get a snapshot of current practice, she and her colleagues developed a survey, which the American Society of Clinical Oncology sent to 1,000 randomly selected members between Oct. 19 and Nov. 22, 2021. 244 individuals responded; 93.5% were physicians, and half identified as female. A total of 174 respondents were medical oncologists, 31 were radiation oncologists, and 20 were surgical oncologists. The imbalance among respondents is a limitation of the study. That “may or may not be reflective of our real-time practices (among surgeons), but we do think that since a lot of times patients are seen by medical oncologists, there could be overlap,” said Dr. Chalasani.

About 50% of respondents said that they use breast MRI in the diagnosis of 25% or fewer patients. Approximately 64% of respondents said they used diagnostic mammograms versus about 31% who used imaging mammograms at first imaging. About 53% said they ordered mammograms within the first 6 months after treatment.

38% of those who ordered diagnostic mammograms for surveillance used it for 3-5 years, while 29% continued it for 5 years or more. One-quarter employed additional imaging during follow-up, most commonly breast ultrasound. About 65% said they had no stop date for screening mammograms, as long as the patient remained healthy. The choice of screening or diagnostic mammography was about 50:50, though about 55% said they use screening mammography for patients 80 years of age or older.

Dr. Chalasani pointed out that both screening and diagnostic mammograms provide similar imaging quality. Screening mammograms are completely covered by insurance, while diagnostic mammograms typically require a copay. “We’re doing this [diagnostic mammography] with no guidelines, but there is this out of pocket cost, without knowing if it’s the right thing to do,” she said.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines indicate that diagnostic mammograms can be conducted for 5 years after a ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis, but it doesn’t provide guidance for invasive cancers. Some past studies suggested that doing diagnostic mammograms for 3 years may increase diagnosis, but it isn’t clear if any such advantage would actually result in a clinical difference, according to Dr. Chalasani. “With the treatments we have, we still might cure [the cancer]. So what endpoints are we looking for? Are we changing care to add on toxicity to the patient, and stress to the patient and also for the health care system?”

She hopes that physicians will look at the results and understand that diagnostic mammograms, while they intuitively feel superior, are not supported by guidelines, and patients must incur an extra cost.

Her team also plans to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic mammograms.

Dr. Chalasani has no relevant financial disclosures.

A survey of physicians treating breast cancer patients finds that many use diagnostic mammograms for surveillance rather than screening mammograms, despite lack of evidence for a clinical difference.

Existing guidelines offer little help, according to Pavani Chalasani, MD, MPH, who presented the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “They just say [do an] annual mammogram, but they don’t say, ‘Do we need to do screening? Do we need to do breast MRIs?’”

Her personal experience also reflected a general confusion. “I asked my colleagues and got different answers from seven colleagues,” said Dr. Chalasani, who is an oncologist at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson.

She noted that diagnostic mammograms are generally similar to screening mammograms, but the radiologist is viewing the images in real time and can take additional views as needed while the patient is still present. “That is the biggest difference,” said Dr. Chalasani. No studies have been conducted to determine which method produces better results.

To get a snapshot of current practice, she and her colleagues developed a survey, which the American Society of Clinical Oncology sent to 1,000 randomly selected members between Oct. 19 and Nov. 22, 2021. 244 individuals responded; 93.5% were physicians, and half identified as female. A total of 174 respondents were medical oncologists, 31 were radiation oncologists, and 20 were surgical oncologists. The imbalance among respondents is a limitation of the study. That “may or may not be reflective of our real-time practices (among surgeons), but we do think that since a lot of times patients are seen by medical oncologists, there could be overlap,” said Dr. Chalasani.

About 50% of respondents said that they use breast MRI in the diagnosis of 25% or fewer patients. Approximately 64% of respondents said they used diagnostic mammograms versus about 31% who used imaging mammograms at first imaging. About 53% said they ordered mammograms within the first 6 months after treatment.

38% of those who ordered diagnostic mammograms for surveillance used it for 3-5 years, while 29% continued it for 5 years or more. One-quarter employed additional imaging during follow-up, most commonly breast ultrasound. About 65% said they had no stop date for screening mammograms, as long as the patient remained healthy. The choice of screening or diagnostic mammography was about 50:50, though about 55% said they use screening mammography for patients 80 years of age or older.

Dr. Chalasani pointed out that both screening and diagnostic mammograms provide similar imaging quality. Screening mammograms are completely covered by insurance, while diagnostic mammograms typically require a copay. “We’re doing this [diagnostic mammography] with no guidelines, but there is this out of pocket cost, without knowing if it’s the right thing to do,” she said.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines indicate that diagnostic mammograms can be conducted for 5 years after a ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis, but it doesn’t provide guidance for invasive cancers. Some past studies suggested that doing diagnostic mammograms for 3 years may increase diagnosis, but it isn’t clear if any such advantage would actually result in a clinical difference, according to Dr. Chalasani. “With the treatments we have, we still might cure [the cancer]. So what endpoints are we looking for? Are we changing care to add on toxicity to the patient, and stress to the patient and also for the health care system?”

She hopes that physicians will look at the results and understand that diagnostic mammograms, while they intuitively feel superior, are not supported by guidelines, and patients must incur an extra cost.

Her team also plans to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic mammograms.

Dr. Chalasani has no relevant financial disclosures.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Is the ketogenic diet the only way to lose weight? Of course not! Keep track of calories in vs. calories out and almost anyone can lose weight. The problem is keeping it off. To understand that, we need to look at metabolic adaptation and the biology of obesity.

Our bodies have a “set point” that is epigenetically latched onto the environment the brain senses, just as the fetal environment responds to the maternal environment.

Thomas R. Collins/MDedge News

If food is plentiful, our hormones force us to eat until our bodies feel that there are enough fat stores to survive. Because of environmental influences such as highly processed food, preservatives, climate change, and regulation of temperature, our brains have decided that we need more adipose tissue than we did 50-100 years ago. It could be that an element in food has caused a dysfunction of the pathways that regulate our body weight, and most of us “defend” a higher body weight in this environment.

How to counteract that? Not easily. The ketogenic diet works temporarily just like any other diet where calorie intake is lower than usual. It seems to be agreeable to many people because they say they feel full after eating protein, fat, and perhaps some vegetables. Protein and fat are certainly more satiating than simple carbohydrates.

If strictly followed, a ketogenic diet will force the body to burn fat and go into ketosis. Without a source for glucose, the brain will burn ketones from fat stores. Owen and colleagues discovered this in 1969 when they did their now-famous studies of fasting in inpatients at Brigham and Women’s hospital, using IV amino acids to protect muscle mass.
 

Keto for life?

Is the ketogenic diet a healthy diet for the long term? That is a different question.

Of course not – we need high-fiber carbohydrate sources such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to keep the colon healthy and obtain the vitamins and minerals needed to make the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, work at its best.

Why, then, are we promoting ketogenic diets for those with obesity and type 2 diabetes? Ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diets are easy to teach and can rapidly help patients lose weight and return their blood glucose, blood pressure, and other metabolic parameters to normal.

The patient will be instructed to avoid all highly processed foods. Studies have shown that highly processed foods, created to maximize flavor, “coerce” people to eat more calories than when presented with the same number of calories in unprocessed foods, a way to fool the brain.
 

Why are we fooling the brain?

We circumvent the natural satiety mechanisms that start with the gut. When we eat, our gastric fundus and intestinal stretch receptors start the process that informs the hypothalamus about food intake. Highly processed foods are usually devoid of fiber and volume, and pack in the calories in small volumes so that the stretch receptors are not activated until more calories are ingested. The study mentioned above developed two ad lib diets with the same number of calories, sugar, fat, and carbohydrate content – one ultraprocessed and the other unprocessed.

That explanation is just the tip of the iceberg, because a lot more than primitive stretch receptors is informing the brain. There are gut hormones that are secreted before and after meals, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and cholecystokinin (CCK), among a slew of others. These peptide hormones are all secreted from gut cells into the blood or vagus nerve, or both, and alert the brain that there is or is not enough food to maintain body weight at its set point.

It’s a highly regulated and precise system that regulates body weight for survival of the species in this environment. However, the environment has changed over the past 100 years but our genetic makeup for survival of the fittest has not. The mechanism of action for defense of a higher body weight set point in this new environment has not been elucidated as yet. Most likely, there are many players or instigators involved, such as food-supply changes, sedentary lifestyle, ambient temperature, fetal programming, air quality, and global warming and climate change, to name a few.

The goal of obesity researchers is to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the increased prevalence of obesity over the past 100 years. The goal of obesity medicine specialists is to treat obesity in adults and children, and to prevent obesity as much as possible with lifestyle change and medications that have been shown to help “reverse” the metabolic adaptation to this environment. Our newest GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists have been shown in animal models to hit several pathways that lead to obesity. They are not just appetite suppressants. Yes, they do modulate appetite and satiety, but they also affect energy expenditure. The body’s normal reaction to a lack of calorie intake is to reduce resting energy expenditure until body weight increases back to “set point levels.” These agonists prevent that metabolic adaptation. That is why they are true agents that can treat obesity – the disease.

Back to the ketogenic diet. The ketogenic diet can fool the brain temporarily by using protein and fat to elicit satiety with less food intake in calories. After a while, however, gut hormones and other factors begin to counteract the weight loss with a reduction in resting energy and total energy expenditure, and other metabolic measures, to get the body back to a certain body weight set point.

The ketogenic diet also can help dieters avoid ultra- and highly processed foods. In the end, any type of diet that lowers caloric intake will work for weight loss, but it’s the maintenance of that weight loss that makes a long-term difference, and that involves closing the metabolic gap that the body generates to defend fat mass. Understanding this pathophysiology will allow obesity medicine specialists to assist patients with obesity to lose weight and keep it off.

Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis Srl, L-Nutra, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GI Dynamics, and Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is the ketogenic diet the only way to lose weight? Of course not! Keep track of calories in vs. calories out and almost anyone can lose weight. The problem is keeping it off. To understand that, we need to look at metabolic adaptation and the biology of obesity.

Our bodies have a “set point” that is epigenetically latched onto the environment the brain senses, just as the fetal environment responds to the maternal environment.

Thomas R. Collins/MDedge News

If food is plentiful, our hormones force us to eat until our bodies feel that there are enough fat stores to survive. Because of environmental influences such as highly processed food, preservatives, climate change, and regulation of temperature, our brains have decided that we need more adipose tissue than we did 50-100 years ago. It could be that an element in food has caused a dysfunction of the pathways that regulate our body weight, and most of us “defend” a higher body weight in this environment.

How to counteract that? Not easily. The ketogenic diet works temporarily just like any other diet where calorie intake is lower than usual. It seems to be agreeable to many people because they say they feel full after eating protein, fat, and perhaps some vegetables. Protein and fat are certainly more satiating than simple carbohydrates.

If strictly followed, a ketogenic diet will force the body to burn fat and go into ketosis. Without a source for glucose, the brain will burn ketones from fat stores. Owen and colleagues discovered this in 1969 when they did their now-famous studies of fasting in inpatients at Brigham and Women’s hospital, using IV amino acids to protect muscle mass.
 

Keto for life?

Is the ketogenic diet a healthy diet for the long term? That is a different question.

Of course not – we need high-fiber carbohydrate sources such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to keep the colon healthy and obtain the vitamins and minerals needed to make the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, work at its best.

Why, then, are we promoting ketogenic diets for those with obesity and type 2 diabetes? Ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diets are easy to teach and can rapidly help patients lose weight and return their blood glucose, blood pressure, and other metabolic parameters to normal.

The patient will be instructed to avoid all highly processed foods. Studies have shown that highly processed foods, created to maximize flavor, “coerce” people to eat more calories than when presented with the same number of calories in unprocessed foods, a way to fool the brain.
 

Why are we fooling the brain?

We circumvent the natural satiety mechanisms that start with the gut. When we eat, our gastric fundus and intestinal stretch receptors start the process that informs the hypothalamus about food intake. Highly processed foods are usually devoid of fiber and volume, and pack in the calories in small volumes so that the stretch receptors are not activated until more calories are ingested. The study mentioned above developed two ad lib diets with the same number of calories, sugar, fat, and carbohydrate content – one ultraprocessed and the other unprocessed.

That explanation is just the tip of the iceberg, because a lot more than primitive stretch receptors is informing the brain. There are gut hormones that are secreted before and after meals, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and cholecystokinin (CCK), among a slew of others. These peptide hormones are all secreted from gut cells into the blood or vagus nerve, or both, and alert the brain that there is or is not enough food to maintain body weight at its set point.

It’s a highly regulated and precise system that regulates body weight for survival of the species in this environment. However, the environment has changed over the past 100 years but our genetic makeup for survival of the fittest has not. The mechanism of action for defense of a higher body weight set point in this new environment has not been elucidated as yet. Most likely, there are many players or instigators involved, such as food-supply changes, sedentary lifestyle, ambient temperature, fetal programming, air quality, and global warming and climate change, to name a few.

The goal of obesity researchers is to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the increased prevalence of obesity over the past 100 years. The goal of obesity medicine specialists is to treat obesity in adults and children, and to prevent obesity as much as possible with lifestyle change and medications that have been shown to help “reverse” the metabolic adaptation to this environment. Our newest GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists have been shown in animal models to hit several pathways that lead to obesity. They are not just appetite suppressants. Yes, they do modulate appetite and satiety, but they also affect energy expenditure. The body’s normal reaction to a lack of calorie intake is to reduce resting energy expenditure until body weight increases back to “set point levels.” These agonists prevent that metabolic adaptation. That is why they are true agents that can treat obesity – the disease.

Back to the ketogenic diet. The ketogenic diet can fool the brain temporarily by using protein and fat to elicit satiety with less food intake in calories. After a while, however, gut hormones and other factors begin to counteract the weight loss with a reduction in resting energy and total energy expenditure, and other metabolic measures, to get the body back to a certain body weight set point.

The ketogenic diet also can help dieters avoid ultra- and highly processed foods. In the end, any type of diet that lowers caloric intake will work for weight loss, but it’s the maintenance of that weight loss that makes a long-term difference, and that involves closing the metabolic gap that the body generates to defend fat mass. Understanding this pathophysiology will allow obesity medicine specialists to assist patients with obesity to lose weight and keep it off.

Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis Srl, L-Nutra, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GI Dynamics, and Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is the ketogenic diet the only way to lose weight? Of course not! Keep track of calories in vs. calories out and almost anyone can lose weight. The problem is keeping it off. To understand that, we need to look at metabolic adaptation and the biology of obesity.

Our bodies have a “set point” that is epigenetically latched onto the environment the brain senses, just as the fetal environment responds to the maternal environment.

Thomas R. Collins/MDedge News

If food is plentiful, our hormones force us to eat until our bodies feel that there are enough fat stores to survive. Because of environmental influences such as highly processed food, preservatives, climate change, and regulation of temperature, our brains have decided that we need more adipose tissue than we did 50-100 years ago. It could be that an element in food has caused a dysfunction of the pathways that regulate our body weight, and most of us “defend” a higher body weight in this environment.

How to counteract that? Not easily. The ketogenic diet works temporarily just like any other diet where calorie intake is lower than usual. It seems to be agreeable to many people because they say they feel full after eating protein, fat, and perhaps some vegetables. Protein and fat are certainly more satiating than simple carbohydrates.

If strictly followed, a ketogenic diet will force the body to burn fat and go into ketosis. Without a source for glucose, the brain will burn ketones from fat stores. Owen and colleagues discovered this in 1969 when they did their now-famous studies of fasting in inpatients at Brigham and Women’s hospital, using IV amino acids to protect muscle mass.
 

Keto for life?

Is the ketogenic diet a healthy diet for the long term? That is a different question.

Of course not – we need high-fiber carbohydrate sources such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to keep the colon healthy and obtain the vitamins and minerals needed to make the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, work at its best.

Why, then, are we promoting ketogenic diets for those with obesity and type 2 diabetes? Ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diets are easy to teach and can rapidly help patients lose weight and return their blood glucose, blood pressure, and other metabolic parameters to normal.

The patient will be instructed to avoid all highly processed foods. Studies have shown that highly processed foods, created to maximize flavor, “coerce” people to eat more calories than when presented with the same number of calories in unprocessed foods, a way to fool the brain.
 

Why are we fooling the brain?

We circumvent the natural satiety mechanisms that start with the gut. When we eat, our gastric fundus and intestinal stretch receptors start the process that informs the hypothalamus about food intake. Highly processed foods are usually devoid of fiber and volume, and pack in the calories in small volumes so that the stretch receptors are not activated until more calories are ingested. The study mentioned above developed two ad lib diets with the same number of calories, sugar, fat, and carbohydrate content – one ultraprocessed and the other unprocessed.

That explanation is just the tip of the iceberg, because a lot more than primitive stretch receptors is informing the brain. There are gut hormones that are secreted before and after meals, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and cholecystokinin (CCK), among a slew of others. These peptide hormones are all secreted from gut cells into the blood or vagus nerve, or both, and alert the brain that there is or is not enough food to maintain body weight at its set point.

It’s a highly regulated and precise system that regulates body weight for survival of the species in this environment. However, the environment has changed over the past 100 years but our genetic makeup for survival of the fittest has not. The mechanism of action for defense of a higher body weight set point in this new environment has not been elucidated as yet. Most likely, there are many players or instigators involved, such as food-supply changes, sedentary lifestyle, ambient temperature, fetal programming, air quality, and global warming and climate change, to name a few.

The goal of obesity researchers is to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the increased prevalence of obesity over the past 100 years. The goal of obesity medicine specialists is to treat obesity in adults and children, and to prevent obesity as much as possible with lifestyle change and medications that have been shown to help “reverse” the metabolic adaptation to this environment. Our newest GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists have been shown in animal models to hit several pathways that lead to obesity. They are not just appetite suppressants. Yes, they do modulate appetite and satiety, but they also affect energy expenditure. The body’s normal reaction to a lack of calorie intake is to reduce resting energy expenditure until body weight increases back to “set point levels.” These agonists prevent that metabolic adaptation. That is why they are true agents that can treat obesity – the disease.

Back to the ketogenic diet. The ketogenic diet can fool the brain temporarily by using protein and fat to elicit satiety with less food intake in calories. After a while, however, gut hormones and other factors begin to counteract the weight loss with a reduction in resting energy and total energy expenditure, and other metabolic measures, to get the body back to a certain body weight set point.

The ketogenic diet also can help dieters avoid ultra- and highly processed foods. In the end, any type of diet that lowers caloric intake will work for weight loss, but it’s the maintenance of that weight loss that makes a long-term difference, and that involves closing the metabolic gap that the body generates to defend fat mass. Understanding this pathophysiology will allow obesity medicine specialists to assist patients with obesity to lose weight and keep it off.

Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis Srl, L-Nutra, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GI Dynamics, and Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.

A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.

A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.

“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.

Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.

The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.

Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.

“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”

“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.

“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.

“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Investigating trends in medication adherence

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.  

After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.

Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.

However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.

Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.

The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.

About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).

Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.

“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.

They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.

The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.

It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.

Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.

“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.

“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.

This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.

Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).

The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.

A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.

A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.

“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.

Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.

The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.

Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.

“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”

“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.

“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.

“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Investigating trends in medication adherence

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.  

After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.

Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.

However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.

Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.

The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.

About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).

Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.

“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.

They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.

The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.

It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.

Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.

“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.

“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.

This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.

Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).

The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.

A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.

A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.

“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.

Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.

The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.

Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.

“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”

“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.

“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.

“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Investigating trends in medication adherence

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.  

After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.

Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.

However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.

Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.

The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.

About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).

Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.

“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.

They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.

The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.

It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.

Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.

“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.

“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.

This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.

Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).

The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When the Affordable Care Act was signed in 2010, patients became eligible for coverage of screening examinations, which was good news for gastroenterologists and their patients in the fight to prevent colorectal cancer.

But there was a problem: While noninvasive stool tests – measuring microscopic amounts of blood or key DNA mutations, both tip-offs to increased colorectal cancer risk – were considered a screen, the necessary follow-up colonoscopy was not, leaving patients with expensive copays or other payment responsibility.

That interpretation prompted a years-long effort to have the federal agencies who oversee the health insurance sector reinterpret their policy, which finally changed in May 2022. Medicare, which is not covered by the ACA and is administered by a different agency, announced a change to its policy in July 2022, and the change went into effect in January 2023.

“It’s a major victory for patients, and I couldn’t be more delighted,” said David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine in gastroenterology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and former American Gastroenterological Association president, who participated in the effort.

AGA Regulatory Affairs Director Leslie Narramore said AGA Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy Kathleen Teixeira worked for 10 years, alongside other GI societies and patient advocacy groups, to close the “colonoscopy loophole.” In 2022, the AGA, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and the American Cancer Society–Cancer Action Network met with White House officials and senior officials with the Department of Health & Human Services about expanding the coverage. They also lobbied to eliminate cost-sharing, another way in which preventive colonoscopy is discouraged.

“The COVID-19 public health emergency highlighted health disparities and barriers to access to care,” said Ms. Narramore, who gave input about the effort along with Ms. Teixeira and AGA Director of Government Affairs Sarah Ankney. “The temporary suspension of elective procedures, including screening colonoscopies, exacerbated the existing low colorectal screening rates and created momentum and willingness in agency officials to create positive change.”

Without coverage of the colonoscopy, patients have needed to cover at least part of the cost of the procedure, which could be $1,000 or more with private insurance, or $100 or more with Medicare, Dr. Lieberman said. So, he noted, unsuspecting patients might receive a positive result on a noninvasive test and have a colonoscopy, only to get a “surprise bill.” Or they would know about the lack of coverage and not get the colonoscopy.

“Prior to the policy change, gastroenterologists and their staff had to explain to patients that their insurer would not fully pay for a colonoscopy following a positive noninvasive stool test, and field questions from upset patients who weren’t aware of their insurance plan’s cost-sharing requirements for a cancer screening procedure they thought was free,” Ms. Narramore said.

There’s little doubt the change will help save lives and improve quality of life, Dr. Lieberman said.

“We don’t know the full impact of this new ruling, but we know that financial barriers are important for some patients,” he said. “And so by removing these barriers we hope that we’re going to see improved adherence to follow-up with colonoscopy after a positive stool test, and that would result in reductions in incidence, mortality, and increased life-years gained.”

Ms. Narramore said the changes show the importance of pushing for policy change.

“Our physician advocates were effective in educating policy makers on the need for coverage of the full colorectal cancer screening continuum, and how colorectal cancer needs to be viewed as a program given the various steps necessary for a complete screening,” she said. “These successful efforts demonstrate to our members that advocacy works and that they can be a voice for their patients in improving their access to care.”






 

When the Affordable Care Act was signed in 2010, patients became eligible for coverage of screening examinations, which was good news for gastroenterologists and their patients in the fight to prevent colorectal cancer.

But there was a problem: While noninvasive stool tests – measuring microscopic amounts of blood or key DNA mutations, both tip-offs to increased colorectal cancer risk – were considered a screen, the necessary follow-up colonoscopy was not, leaving patients with expensive copays or other payment responsibility.

That interpretation prompted a years-long effort to have the federal agencies who oversee the health insurance sector reinterpret their policy, which finally changed in May 2022. Medicare, which is not covered by the ACA and is administered by a different agency, announced a change to its policy in July 2022, and the change went into effect in January 2023.

“It’s a major victory for patients, and I couldn’t be more delighted,” said David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine in gastroenterology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and former American Gastroenterological Association president, who participated in the effort.

AGA Regulatory Affairs Director Leslie Narramore said AGA Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy Kathleen Teixeira worked for 10 years, alongside other GI societies and patient advocacy groups, to close the “colonoscopy loophole.” In 2022, the AGA, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and the American Cancer Society–Cancer Action Network met with White House officials and senior officials with the Department of Health & Human Services about expanding the coverage. They also lobbied to eliminate cost-sharing, another way in which preventive colonoscopy is discouraged.

“The COVID-19 public health emergency highlighted health disparities and barriers to access to care,” said Ms. Narramore, who gave input about the effort along with Ms. Teixeira and AGA Director of Government Affairs Sarah Ankney. “The temporary suspension of elective procedures, including screening colonoscopies, exacerbated the existing low colorectal screening rates and created momentum and willingness in agency officials to create positive change.”

Without coverage of the colonoscopy, patients have needed to cover at least part of the cost of the procedure, which could be $1,000 or more with private insurance, or $100 or more with Medicare, Dr. Lieberman said. So, he noted, unsuspecting patients might receive a positive result on a noninvasive test and have a colonoscopy, only to get a “surprise bill.” Or they would know about the lack of coverage and not get the colonoscopy.

“Prior to the policy change, gastroenterologists and their staff had to explain to patients that their insurer would not fully pay for a colonoscopy following a positive noninvasive stool test, and field questions from upset patients who weren’t aware of their insurance plan’s cost-sharing requirements for a cancer screening procedure they thought was free,” Ms. Narramore said.

There’s little doubt the change will help save lives and improve quality of life, Dr. Lieberman said.

“We don’t know the full impact of this new ruling, but we know that financial barriers are important for some patients,” he said. “And so by removing these barriers we hope that we’re going to see improved adherence to follow-up with colonoscopy after a positive stool test, and that would result in reductions in incidence, mortality, and increased life-years gained.”

Ms. Narramore said the changes show the importance of pushing for policy change.

“Our physician advocates were effective in educating policy makers on the need for coverage of the full colorectal cancer screening continuum, and how colorectal cancer needs to be viewed as a program given the various steps necessary for a complete screening,” she said. “These successful efforts demonstrate to our members that advocacy works and that they can be a voice for their patients in improving their access to care.”






 

When the Affordable Care Act was signed in 2010, patients became eligible for coverage of screening examinations, which was good news for gastroenterologists and their patients in the fight to prevent colorectal cancer.

But there was a problem: While noninvasive stool tests – measuring microscopic amounts of blood or key DNA mutations, both tip-offs to increased colorectal cancer risk – were considered a screen, the necessary follow-up colonoscopy was not, leaving patients with expensive copays or other payment responsibility.

That interpretation prompted a years-long effort to have the federal agencies who oversee the health insurance sector reinterpret their policy, which finally changed in May 2022. Medicare, which is not covered by the ACA and is administered by a different agency, announced a change to its policy in July 2022, and the change went into effect in January 2023.

“It’s a major victory for patients, and I couldn’t be more delighted,” said David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine in gastroenterology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and former American Gastroenterological Association president, who participated in the effort.

AGA Regulatory Affairs Director Leslie Narramore said AGA Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy Kathleen Teixeira worked for 10 years, alongside other GI societies and patient advocacy groups, to close the “colonoscopy loophole.” In 2022, the AGA, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and the American Cancer Society–Cancer Action Network met with White House officials and senior officials with the Department of Health & Human Services about expanding the coverage. They also lobbied to eliminate cost-sharing, another way in which preventive colonoscopy is discouraged.

“The COVID-19 public health emergency highlighted health disparities and barriers to access to care,” said Ms. Narramore, who gave input about the effort along with Ms. Teixeira and AGA Director of Government Affairs Sarah Ankney. “The temporary suspension of elective procedures, including screening colonoscopies, exacerbated the existing low colorectal screening rates and created momentum and willingness in agency officials to create positive change.”

Without coverage of the colonoscopy, patients have needed to cover at least part of the cost of the procedure, which could be $1,000 or more with private insurance, or $100 or more with Medicare, Dr. Lieberman said. So, he noted, unsuspecting patients might receive a positive result on a noninvasive test and have a colonoscopy, only to get a “surprise bill.” Or they would know about the lack of coverage and not get the colonoscopy.

“Prior to the policy change, gastroenterologists and their staff had to explain to patients that their insurer would not fully pay for a colonoscopy following a positive noninvasive stool test, and field questions from upset patients who weren’t aware of their insurance plan’s cost-sharing requirements for a cancer screening procedure they thought was free,” Ms. Narramore said.

There’s little doubt the change will help save lives and improve quality of life, Dr. Lieberman said.

“We don’t know the full impact of this new ruling, but we know that financial barriers are important for some patients,” he said. “And so by removing these barriers we hope that we’re going to see improved adherence to follow-up with colonoscopy after a positive stool test, and that would result in reductions in incidence, mortality, and increased life-years gained.”

Ms. Narramore said the changes show the importance of pushing for policy change.

“Our physician advocates were effective in educating policy makers on the need for coverage of the full colorectal cancer screening continuum, and how colorectal cancer needs to be viewed as a program given the various steps necessary for a complete screening,” she said. “These successful efforts demonstrate to our members that advocacy works and that they can be a voice for their patients in improving their access to care.”