Patients with type 2 diabetes who received empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, were almost 40% less likely to have a kidney stone than patients who received placebo during a median 1.5 years of treatment.

These findings are from an analysis of pooled data from phase 1-4 clinical trials of empagliflozin for blood glucose control in 15,081 patients with type 2 diabetes.  

Priyadarshini Balasubramanian, MD, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society; the study also was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The researchers acknowledge this was a retrospective, post-hoc analysis and that urolithiasis – a stone in the urinary tract, which includes nephrolithiasis, a kidney stone – was an adverse event, not a primary or secondary outcome.

Also, the stone composition, which might help explain how the drug may affect stone formation, is unknown.

Therefore, “dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these initial observations in patients both with and without type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, a clinical fellow in the section of endocrinology & metabolism, department of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, “if this association is proven, empagliflozin may be used to decrease the risk of kidney stones at least in those with type 2 diabetes, but maybe also in those without diabetes,” Dr. Balasubramanian said in an interview.

Further trials are also needed to determine if this is a class effect, which is likely, she speculated, and to unravel the potential mechanism.

This is important because of the prevalence of kidney stones, which affect up to 15% of the general population and 15%-20% of patients with diabetes, she explained.
 

‘Provocative’ earlier findings

The current study was prompted by a recent observational study by Kasper B. Kristensen, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Because SGLT2 inhibitors increase urinary glucose excretion through reduced renal reabsorption of glucose leading to osmotic diuresis and increased urinary flow, they hypothesized that these therapies “may reduce the risk of upper urinary tract stones (nephrolithiasis) by reducing the concentration of lithogenic substances in urine.” 

Using data from Danish Health registries, they matched 12,325 individuals newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor 1:1 with patients newly prescribed a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, another new class of drugs for treating type 2 diabetes.

They found a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.71) for incident nephrolithiasis and a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97) for recurrent nephrolithiasis for patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

These findings are “striking,” according to Dr. Balasubramanian and colleagues. However, “these data, while provocative, were entirely retrospective and therefore possibly prone to bias,” they add.
 

Pooled data from 20 trials

The current study analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, in which 10,177 patients had received empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg and 4,904 patients had received placebo.

Most patients (46.5%) had participated in the EMPA-REG OUTCOMES trial, which also had the longest follow-up (2.6 years).

The researchers identified patients with a new stone from the urinary tract (including the kidney, ureter, and urethra). Patients had received either the study drug for a median of 543 days or placebo for a median of 549 days.

During treatment, 104 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 79 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a stone in the urinary tract.

This was equivalent to 0.63 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 1.01 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The incidence rate ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin.

When the analysis was restricted to new kidney stones, the results were similar: 75 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 57 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a kidney stone.

This was equivalent to 0.45 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 0.72 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The IRR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), in favor of empagliflozin.
 

Upcoming small RCT in adults without diabetes

Invited to comment on the new study, Dr. Kristensen said: “The reduced risk of SGLT2 inhibitors towards nephrolithiasis is now reported in at least two studies with different methodology, different populations, and different exposure and outcome definitions.”

“I agree that randomized clinical trials designed specifically to confirm these findings appear warranted,” added Dr. Kristensen, from the Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

There is a need for studies in patients with and without diabetes, he added, especially ones that focus on prevention of nephrolithiasis in patients with kidney stone disease.

A new trial should shed further light on this.

Results are expected by the end of 2022 for SWEETSTONE (Impact of the SGLT2 Inhibitor Empagliflozin on Urinary Supersaturations in Kidney Stone Formers), a randomized, double-blind crossover exploratory study in 46 patients without diabetes.

This should provide preliminary data to “establish the relevance for larger trials assessing the prophylactic potential of empagliflozin in kidney stone disease,” according to an article on the trial protocol recently published in BMJ.

The trials included in the pooled dataset were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim or the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Balasubramanian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who received empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, were almost 40% less likely to have a kidney stone than patients who received placebo during a median 1.5 years of treatment.

These findings are from an analysis of pooled data from phase 1-4 clinical trials of empagliflozin for blood glucose control in 15,081 patients with type 2 diabetes.  

Priyadarshini Balasubramanian, MD, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society; the study also was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The researchers acknowledge this was a retrospective, post-hoc analysis and that urolithiasis – a stone in the urinary tract, which includes nephrolithiasis, a kidney stone – was an adverse event, not a primary or secondary outcome.

Also, the stone composition, which might help explain how the drug may affect stone formation, is unknown.

Therefore, “dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these initial observations in patients both with and without type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, a clinical fellow in the section of endocrinology & metabolism, department of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, “if this association is proven, empagliflozin may be used to decrease the risk of kidney stones at least in those with type 2 diabetes, but maybe also in those without diabetes,” Dr. Balasubramanian said in an interview.

Further trials are also needed to determine if this is a class effect, which is likely, she speculated, and to unravel the potential mechanism.

This is important because of the prevalence of kidney stones, which affect up to 15% of the general population and 15%-20% of patients with diabetes, she explained.
 

‘Provocative’ earlier findings

The current study was prompted by a recent observational study by Kasper B. Kristensen, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Because SGLT2 inhibitors increase urinary glucose excretion through reduced renal reabsorption of glucose leading to osmotic diuresis and increased urinary flow, they hypothesized that these therapies “may reduce the risk of upper urinary tract stones (nephrolithiasis) by reducing the concentration of lithogenic substances in urine.” 

Using data from Danish Health registries, they matched 12,325 individuals newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor 1:1 with patients newly prescribed a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, another new class of drugs for treating type 2 diabetes.

They found a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.71) for incident nephrolithiasis and a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97) for recurrent nephrolithiasis for patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

These findings are “striking,” according to Dr. Balasubramanian and colleagues. However, “these data, while provocative, were entirely retrospective and therefore possibly prone to bias,” they add.
 

Pooled data from 20 trials

The current study analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, in which 10,177 patients had received empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg and 4,904 patients had received placebo.

Most patients (46.5%) had participated in the EMPA-REG OUTCOMES trial, which also had the longest follow-up (2.6 years).

The researchers identified patients with a new stone from the urinary tract (including the kidney, ureter, and urethra). Patients had received either the study drug for a median of 543 days or placebo for a median of 549 days.

During treatment, 104 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 79 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a stone in the urinary tract.

This was equivalent to 0.63 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 1.01 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The incidence rate ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin.

When the analysis was restricted to new kidney stones, the results were similar: 75 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 57 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a kidney stone.

This was equivalent to 0.45 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 0.72 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The IRR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), in favor of empagliflozin.
 

Upcoming small RCT in adults without diabetes

Invited to comment on the new study, Dr. Kristensen said: “The reduced risk of SGLT2 inhibitors towards nephrolithiasis is now reported in at least two studies with different methodology, different populations, and different exposure and outcome definitions.”

“I agree that randomized clinical trials designed specifically to confirm these findings appear warranted,” added Dr. Kristensen, from the Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

There is a need for studies in patients with and without diabetes, he added, especially ones that focus on prevention of nephrolithiasis in patients with kidney stone disease.

A new trial should shed further light on this.

Results are expected by the end of 2022 for SWEETSTONE (Impact of the SGLT2 Inhibitor Empagliflozin on Urinary Supersaturations in Kidney Stone Formers), a randomized, double-blind crossover exploratory study in 46 patients without diabetes.

This should provide preliminary data to “establish the relevance for larger trials assessing the prophylactic potential of empagliflozin in kidney stone disease,” according to an article on the trial protocol recently published in BMJ.

The trials included in the pooled dataset were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim or the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Balasubramanian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who received empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, were almost 40% less likely to have a kidney stone than patients who received placebo during a median 1.5 years of treatment.

These findings are from an analysis of pooled data from phase 1-4 clinical trials of empagliflozin for blood glucose control in 15,081 patients with type 2 diabetes.  

Priyadarshini Balasubramanian, MD, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society; the study also was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The researchers acknowledge this was a retrospective, post-hoc analysis and that urolithiasis – a stone in the urinary tract, which includes nephrolithiasis, a kidney stone – was an adverse event, not a primary or secondary outcome.

Also, the stone composition, which might help explain how the drug may affect stone formation, is unknown.

Therefore, “dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these initial observations in patients both with and without type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, a clinical fellow in the section of endocrinology & metabolism, department of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, “if this association is proven, empagliflozin may be used to decrease the risk of kidney stones at least in those with type 2 diabetes, but maybe also in those without diabetes,” Dr. Balasubramanian said in an interview.

Further trials are also needed to determine if this is a class effect, which is likely, she speculated, and to unravel the potential mechanism.

This is important because of the prevalence of kidney stones, which affect up to 15% of the general population and 15%-20% of patients with diabetes, she explained.
 

‘Provocative’ earlier findings

The current study was prompted by a recent observational study by Kasper B. Kristensen, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Because SGLT2 inhibitors increase urinary glucose excretion through reduced renal reabsorption of glucose leading to osmotic diuresis and increased urinary flow, they hypothesized that these therapies “may reduce the risk of upper urinary tract stones (nephrolithiasis) by reducing the concentration of lithogenic substances in urine.” 

Using data from Danish Health registries, they matched 12,325 individuals newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor 1:1 with patients newly prescribed a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, another new class of drugs for treating type 2 diabetes.

They found a hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.71) for incident nephrolithiasis and a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97) for recurrent nephrolithiasis for patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists.

These findings are “striking,” according to Dr. Balasubramanian and colleagues. However, “these data, while provocative, were entirely retrospective and therefore possibly prone to bias,” they add.
 

Pooled data from 20 trials

The current study analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, in which 10,177 patients had received empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg and 4,904 patients had received placebo.

Most patients (46.5%) had participated in the EMPA-REG OUTCOMES trial, which also had the longest follow-up (2.6 years).

The researchers identified patients with a new stone from the urinary tract (including the kidney, ureter, and urethra). Patients had received either the study drug for a median of 543 days or placebo for a median of 549 days.

During treatment, 104 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 79 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a stone in the urinary tract.

This was equivalent to 0.63 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 1.01 new urinary-tract stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The incidence rate ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin.

When the analysis was restricted to new kidney stones, the results were similar: 75 of 10,177 patients in the pooled empagliflozin groups and 57 of 4,904 patients in the pooled placebo groups developed a kidney stone.

This was equivalent to 0.45 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled empagliflozin groups versus 0.72 new kidney stones per 100 patient-years in the pooled placebo groups.

The IRR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), in favor of empagliflozin.
 

Upcoming small RCT in adults without diabetes

Invited to comment on the new study, Dr. Kristensen said: “The reduced risk of SGLT2 inhibitors towards nephrolithiasis is now reported in at least two studies with different methodology, different populations, and different exposure and outcome definitions.”

“I agree that randomized clinical trials designed specifically to confirm these findings appear warranted,” added Dr. Kristensen, from the Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

There is a need for studies in patients with and without diabetes, he added, especially ones that focus on prevention of nephrolithiasis in patients with kidney stone disease.

A new trial should shed further light on this.

Results are expected by the end of 2022 for SWEETSTONE (Impact of the SGLT2 Inhibitor Empagliflozin on Urinary Supersaturations in Kidney Stone Formers), a randomized, double-blind crossover exploratory study in 46 patients without diabetes.

This should provide preliminary data to “establish the relevance for larger trials assessing the prophylactic potential of empagliflozin in kidney stone disease,” according to an article on the trial protocol recently published in BMJ.

The trials included in the pooled dataset were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim or the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Balasubramanian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.

Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.

That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.

But what if the results aren’t the same?

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The results of a 12-week exercise program were different for morning versus evening workouts.

Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.

The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
 

An accidental discovery

The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.

The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).

But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.

It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.

Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.

Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
 

Strategic timing for powerful results

Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.

On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.

The findings apply to both men and women.

Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.

A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.

They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
 

Train consistently, sleep well

When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)

Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.

Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.

Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.

“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
 

All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better

“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”

But context matters, he noted.

“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.

And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.

And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.

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

For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.

Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.

That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.

But what if the results aren’t the same?

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The results of a 12-week exercise program were different for morning versus evening workouts.

Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.

The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
 

An accidental discovery

The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.

The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).

But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.

It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.

Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.

Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
 

Strategic timing for powerful results

Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.

On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.

The findings apply to both men and women.

Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.

A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.

They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
 

Train consistently, sleep well

When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)

Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.

Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.

Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.

“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
 

All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better

“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”

But context matters, he noted.

“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.

And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.

And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.

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

For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.

Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.

That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.

But what if the results aren’t the same?

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The results of a 12-week exercise program were different for morning versus evening workouts.

Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.

The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
 

An accidental discovery

The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.

The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).

But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.

It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.

Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.

Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
 

Strategic timing for powerful results

Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.

On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.

The findings apply to both men and women.

Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.

A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.

They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
 

Train consistently, sleep well

When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)

Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.

Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.

Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.

“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
 

All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better

“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”

But context matters, he noted.

“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.

And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.

And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Storks everywhere, rejoice. A new study shows that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk of death over the next 7 years.

According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.

Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”

“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.

The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.

Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.

For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
 

Three tries to succeed

Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.

Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.

At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.

Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.

After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).

The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.

Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.

“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”

Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.

For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.

“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”

George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”

Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.

“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”

Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Storks everywhere, rejoice. A new study shows that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk of death over the next 7 years.

According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.

Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”

“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.

The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.

Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.

For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
 

Three tries to succeed

Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.

Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.

At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.

Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.

After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).

The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.

Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.

“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”

Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.

For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.

“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”

George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”

Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.

“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”

Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Storks everywhere, rejoice. A new study shows that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk of death over the next 7 years.

According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.

Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”

“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.

The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.

Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.

For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
 

Three tries to succeed

Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.

Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.

At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.

Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.

After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).

The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.

Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.

“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”

Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.

For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.

“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”

George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”

Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.

“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”

Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Hormone receptor positive (HR+) basal tumors are biologically analogous to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), independent of race. That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.

Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.

TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.

Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).

Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).

The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.

“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.

There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.

A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.

Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”

Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Hormone receptor positive (HR+) basal tumors are biologically analogous to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), independent of race. That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.

Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.

TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.

Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).

Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).

The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.

“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.

There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.

A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.

Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”

Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Hormone receptor positive (HR+) basal tumors are biologically analogous to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), independent of race. That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.

Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.

TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.

Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).

Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).

The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.

“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.

There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.

A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.

Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”

Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Treatment with an interleukin-6 neutralizing antibody significantly reduced airway mucus hypersecretion (AMH) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from human and mouse cells in a human organoid model.

AMH plays a large part in aggravating airway obstruction in patients with COPD, Yuan-Yuan Wei, MD, of First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, and colleagues wrote.

Current pharmacotherapies relieve COPD symptoms and improve exercise tolerance, but have not proven effective for relieving the airflow limitations caused by mucus accumulation that “leads to irreversible structural damage and an unfavorable prognosis,” the researchers said. Although reducing AMH could help manage COPD, the molecular mechanisms of action have not been fully explored.

In a study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy , the researchers examined the relationship between IL-6 and AMH. Since IL-6 has been shown to cause overexpression of the mucin-type protein known as Muc5ac, they hypothesized that IL-6 antibodies (IL-6Ab) might block this protein elevation.

The researchers recruited 30 adults with COPD and 30 controls from a single center. Bronchial epithelial cells were isolated from the participants and measured the levels of Muc5ac protein and mRNA in the lung tissue. Compared with controls, COPD patients had elevated Muc5ac positively correlated with IL-6.

The researchers then created an organoid model of a trachea for COPD patients and controls. In the model, Muc5ac was similarly elevated in COPD patients, compared with controls. “Furthermore, IL-6 significantly induced excessive secretion of mucus in the organoid model of trachea in COPD patients as observed under electron microscope, and IL-6Ab attenuated these effects,” they noted.

IL-6 significantly increased both Muc5ac mRNA and protein expression in the organoid model of trachea (P < .0001 and P < .005, respectively), but both of these significantly decreased when treated with IL-6Ab (P < .0001 and P < .05, respectively).

The researchers also examined human and mouse cells to explore the mechanism of action of IL-6Ab. Using high-throughput sequencing, they found that the IL-6Ab induced nuclear translocation of the Nrt2 gene in COPD patients, and that this action promoted the effect of IL-6Ab on excessive mucus secretion.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small study population from a single center, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of IL-6Ab as “a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of IL-6–induced hypersecretion of airway mucus so as to improve airflow limitations in COPD,” they concluded.

The study was supported by supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Anhui Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Treatment with an interleukin-6 neutralizing antibody significantly reduced airway mucus hypersecretion (AMH) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from human and mouse cells in a human organoid model.

AMH plays a large part in aggravating airway obstruction in patients with COPD, Yuan-Yuan Wei, MD, of First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, and colleagues wrote.

Current pharmacotherapies relieve COPD symptoms and improve exercise tolerance, but have not proven effective for relieving the airflow limitations caused by mucus accumulation that “leads to irreversible structural damage and an unfavorable prognosis,” the researchers said. Although reducing AMH could help manage COPD, the molecular mechanisms of action have not been fully explored.

In a study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy , the researchers examined the relationship between IL-6 and AMH. Since IL-6 has been shown to cause overexpression of the mucin-type protein known as Muc5ac, they hypothesized that IL-6 antibodies (IL-6Ab) might block this protein elevation.

The researchers recruited 30 adults with COPD and 30 controls from a single center. Bronchial epithelial cells were isolated from the participants and measured the levels of Muc5ac protein and mRNA in the lung tissue. Compared with controls, COPD patients had elevated Muc5ac positively correlated with IL-6.

The researchers then created an organoid model of a trachea for COPD patients and controls. In the model, Muc5ac was similarly elevated in COPD patients, compared with controls. “Furthermore, IL-6 significantly induced excessive secretion of mucus in the organoid model of trachea in COPD patients as observed under electron microscope, and IL-6Ab attenuated these effects,” they noted.

IL-6 significantly increased both Muc5ac mRNA and protein expression in the organoid model of trachea (P < .0001 and P < .005, respectively), but both of these significantly decreased when treated with IL-6Ab (P < .0001 and P < .05, respectively).

The researchers also examined human and mouse cells to explore the mechanism of action of IL-6Ab. Using high-throughput sequencing, they found that the IL-6Ab induced nuclear translocation of the Nrt2 gene in COPD patients, and that this action promoted the effect of IL-6Ab on excessive mucus secretion.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small study population from a single center, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of IL-6Ab as “a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of IL-6–induced hypersecretion of airway mucus so as to improve airflow limitations in COPD,” they concluded.

The study was supported by supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Anhui Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Treatment with an interleukin-6 neutralizing antibody significantly reduced airway mucus hypersecretion (AMH) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from human and mouse cells in a human organoid model.

AMH plays a large part in aggravating airway obstruction in patients with COPD, Yuan-Yuan Wei, MD, of First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, and colleagues wrote.

Current pharmacotherapies relieve COPD symptoms and improve exercise tolerance, but have not proven effective for relieving the airflow limitations caused by mucus accumulation that “leads to irreversible structural damage and an unfavorable prognosis,” the researchers said. Although reducing AMH could help manage COPD, the molecular mechanisms of action have not been fully explored.

In a study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy , the researchers examined the relationship between IL-6 and AMH. Since IL-6 has been shown to cause overexpression of the mucin-type protein known as Muc5ac, they hypothesized that IL-6 antibodies (IL-6Ab) might block this protein elevation.

The researchers recruited 30 adults with COPD and 30 controls from a single center. Bronchial epithelial cells were isolated from the participants and measured the levels of Muc5ac protein and mRNA in the lung tissue. Compared with controls, COPD patients had elevated Muc5ac positively correlated with IL-6.

The researchers then created an organoid model of a trachea for COPD patients and controls. In the model, Muc5ac was similarly elevated in COPD patients, compared with controls. “Furthermore, IL-6 significantly induced excessive secretion of mucus in the organoid model of trachea in COPD patients as observed under electron microscope, and IL-6Ab attenuated these effects,” they noted.

IL-6 significantly increased both Muc5ac mRNA and protein expression in the organoid model of trachea (P < .0001 and P < .005, respectively), but both of these significantly decreased when treated with IL-6Ab (P < .0001 and P < .05, respectively).

The researchers also examined human and mouse cells to explore the mechanism of action of IL-6Ab. Using high-throughput sequencing, they found that the IL-6Ab induced nuclear translocation of the Nrt2 gene in COPD patients, and that this action promoted the effect of IL-6Ab on excessive mucus secretion.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small study population from a single center, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of IL-6Ab as “a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of IL-6–induced hypersecretion of airway mucus so as to improve airflow limitations in COPD,” they concluded.

The study was supported by supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Anhui Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The social behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced the incidence of Kawasaki disease, according to results of a cohort study of nearly 4,000 children.

The incidence of Kawasaki disease in the United States declined by 28.2% between 2018 and 2020, possibly as a result of factors including school closures, mask mandates, and reduced ambient pollution that might reduce exposure to Kawasaki disease (KD) in the environment, but a potential association has not been explored, wrote Jennifer A. Burney, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

KD received greater attention in the public and medical communities because of the emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which is similar to, but distinct from, KD, and because of the noticeable drop in KD cases during the pandemic, the researchers said.

In a multicenter cohort study published in JAMA Network Open , the researchers reviewed data from 2,461 consecutive patients with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2020. They conducted a detailed analysis of analysis of 1,461 children with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2002, and Nov. 15, 2021, at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego (RCHSD), using data from before, during, and after the height of the pandemic. The median age of the children in the RCHSD analysis was 2.8 years, 62% were male, and 35% were Hispanic.

Overall, the prevalence of KD declined from 894 in 2018 to 646 in 2020, across the United States, but the decline was uneven, the researchers noted.

In the RCHSD cohort in San Diego, KD cases in children aged 1-5 years decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021 compared to the mean number of cases in previous years (22 vs. 44.9, P = .02). KD cases also decreased significantly among males and Asian children.

Notably, the occurrence of the KD clinical features of strawberry tongue, enlarged cervical lymph node, and subacute periungual desquamation decreased during 2020 compared with the baseline period, although only strawberry tongue reached statistical significance (39% vs. 63%, P = .04). The prevalence of patients with an enlarged lymph node was 21% in 2020 vs. 32% prior to the pandemic (P = .09); the prevalence of periungual desquamation during these periods was 47% vs. 58%, P = .16).

The researchers also used data from Census Block Groups (CBGs) to assess the impact of mobility metrics and environmental exposures on KD during the pandemic for the San Diego patient cohort. They found that KD cases during the pandemic were more likely to occur in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic status, and that neighborhoods with lower levels of nitrous oxides had fewer KD cases.

Overall, “The reduction in KD case numbers coincided with masking, school closures, reduced circulation of respiratory viruses, and reduced air pollution,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “A rebound in KD case numbers to prepandemic levels coincided with the lifting of mask mandates and, subsequently, the return to in-person schooling,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample sizes, which also limit the interpretation of mobility and pollution data, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the high interannual variability of KD and the inclusion of 2021 rebound data from the San Diego region only.

“Although our original hypothesis was that shelter-in-place measures would track with reduced KD cases, this was not borne out by the San Diego region data. Instead, the San Diego case occurrence data suggest that exposures that triggered KD were more likely to occur in the home, with a shift toward households with higher SES during the pandemic,” the researchers noted. However, “The results presented here are consistent with a respiratory portal of entry for the trigger(s) of KD,” they said.
 

Study fails to validate its conclusions

“This study attempts to test the hypothesis that various social restrictions were associated with a decrease in rate of diagnosed Kawasaki disease cases during portions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“However, it appears that it fails to achieve this conclusion and I disagree with the findings,” said Dr. Gorelik, who was not involved in the study but served as first author on an updated Kawasaki disease treatment guideline published earlier this spring in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“The study does not find statistically significant associations either with shelter in place orders or with cell phone mobility data, as stated in the conclusion, directly contradicting its own claim,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Secondly, the study makes an assumption that various methods, especially the wearing of masks by children and school closures, had a significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. There are no prospective, population based, controlled real world studies that validate this claim, and two prospective controlled real-world studies that dispute this,” he emphasized. “Cloth masks and surgical masks, which were the types of masks worn by school students, are also known to have a nonsignificant and paltry – in the latter, certainly less than 50%, and perhaps as little as 10% – effect on the reduction of respiratory viral spread,” he added.

“Mechanistic studies on mask wearing may suggest some mask efficacy, but these studies are as valid as mechanistic studies showing the effect of various antifungal pharmaceuticals on the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in culture, meaning only valid as hypothesis generating, and ultimately the latter hypothesis failed to bear out,” Dr. Gorelik explained. “We do not know the reason why other respiratory viruses and non-SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses declined during the pandemic, but we do know that despite this, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself did not appear to suffer the same fate. Thus, it is very possible that another factor was at work, and we know that during other viral pandemics, typically circulating viruses decline, potentially due to induction of interferon responses in hosts, in a general effect known as ‘viral interference,’ ” he said.

“Overall, we must have robust evidence to support benefits of hypotheses that have demonstrated clear damage to children during this pandemic (such as school closures), and this study fails to live up to that requirement,” Dr. Gorelik said.  

The study was supported by the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Burney and Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The social behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced the incidence of Kawasaki disease, according to results of a cohort study of nearly 4,000 children.

The incidence of Kawasaki disease in the United States declined by 28.2% between 2018 and 2020, possibly as a result of factors including school closures, mask mandates, and reduced ambient pollution that might reduce exposure to Kawasaki disease (KD) in the environment, but a potential association has not been explored, wrote Jennifer A. Burney, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

KD received greater attention in the public and medical communities because of the emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which is similar to, but distinct from, KD, and because of the noticeable drop in KD cases during the pandemic, the researchers said.

In a multicenter cohort study published in JAMA Network Open , the researchers reviewed data from 2,461 consecutive patients with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2020. They conducted a detailed analysis of analysis of 1,461 children with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2002, and Nov. 15, 2021, at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego (RCHSD), using data from before, during, and after the height of the pandemic. The median age of the children in the RCHSD analysis was 2.8 years, 62% were male, and 35% were Hispanic.

Overall, the prevalence of KD declined from 894 in 2018 to 646 in 2020, across the United States, but the decline was uneven, the researchers noted.

In the RCHSD cohort in San Diego, KD cases in children aged 1-5 years decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021 compared to the mean number of cases in previous years (22 vs. 44.9, P = .02). KD cases also decreased significantly among males and Asian children.

Notably, the occurrence of the KD clinical features of strawberry tongue, enlarged cervical lymph node, and subacute periungual desquamation decreased during 2020 compared with the baseline period, although only strawberry tongue reached statistical significance (39% vs. 63%, P = .04). The prevalence of patients with an enlarged lymph node was 21% in 2020 vs. 32% prior to the pandemic (P = .09); the prevalence of periungual desquamation during these periods was 47% vs. 58%, P = .16).

The researchers also used data from Census Block Groups (CBGs) to assess the impact of mobility metrics and environmental exposures on KD during the pandemic for the San Diego patient cohort. They found that KD cases during the pandemic were more likely to occur in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic status, and that neighborhoods with lower levels of nitrous oxides had fewer KD cases.

Overall, “The reduction in KD case numbers coincided with masking, school closures, reduced circulation of respiratory viruses, and reduced air pollution,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “A rebound in KD case numbers to prepandemic levels coincided with the lifting of mask mandates and, subsequently, the return to in-person schooling,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample sizes, which also limit the interpretation of mobility and pollution data, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the high interannual variability of KD and the inclusion of 2021 rebound data from the San Diego region only.

“Although our original hypothesis was that shelter-in-place measures would track with reduced KD cases, this was not borne out by the San Diego region data. Instead, the San Diego case occurrence data suggest that exposures that triggered KD were more likely to occur in the home, with a shift toward households with higher SES during the pandemic,” the researchers noted. However, “The results presented here are consistent with a respiratory portal of entry for the trigger(s) of KD,” they said.
 

Study fails to validate its conclusions

“This study attempts to test the hypothesis that various social restrictions were associated with a decrease in rate of diagnosed Kawasaki disease cases during portions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“However, it appears that it fails to achieve this conclusion and I disagree with the findings,” said Dr. Gorelik, who was not involved in the study but served as first author on an updated Kawasaki disease treatment guideline published earlier this spring in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“The study does not find statistically significant associations either with shelter in place orders or with cell phone mobility data, as stated in the conclusion, directly contradicting its own claim,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Secondly, the study makes an assumption that various methods, especially the wearing of masks by children and school closures, had a significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. There are no prospective, population based, controlled real world studies that validate this claim, and two prospective controlled real-world studies that dispute this,” he emphasized. “Cloth masks and surgical masks, which were the types of masks worn by school students, are also known to have a nonsignificant and paltry – in the latter, certainly less than 50%, and perhaps as little as 10% – effect on the reduction of respiratory viral spread,” he added.

“Mechanistic studies on mask wearing may suggest some mask efficacy, but these studies are as valid as mechanistic studies showing the effect of various antifungal pharmaceuticals on the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in culture, meaning only valid as hypothesis generating, and ultimately the latter hypothesis failed to bear out,” Dr. Gorelik explained. “We do not know the reason why other respiratory viruses and non-SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses declined during the pandemic, but we do know that despite this, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself did not appear to suffer the same fate. Thus, it is very possible that another factor was at work, and we know that during other viral pandemics, typically circulating viruses decline, potentially due to induction of interferon responses in hosts, in a general effect known as ‘viral interference,’ ” he said.

“Overall, we must have robust evidence to support benefits of hypotheses that have demonstrated clear damage to children during this pandemic (such as school closures), and this study fails to live up to that requirement,” Dr. Gorelik said.  

The study was supported by the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Burney and Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The social behavior associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced the incidence of Kawasaki disease, according to results of a cohort study of nearly 4,000 children.

The incidence of Kawasaki disease in the United States declined by 28.2% between 2018 and 2020, possibly as a result of factors including school closures, mask mandates, and reduced ambient pollution that might reduce exposure to Kawasaki disease (KD) in the environment, but a potential association has not been explored, wrote Jennifer A. Burney, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

KD received greater attention in the public and medical communities because of the emergence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which is similar to, but distinct from, KD, and because of the noticeable drop in KD cases during the pandemic, the researchers said.

In a multicenter cohort study published in JAMA Network Open , the researchers reviewed data from 2,461 consecutive patients with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2020. They conducted a detailed analysis of analysis of 1,461 children with KD who were diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2002, and Nov. 15, 2021, at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego (RCHSD), using data from before, during, and after the height of the pandemic. The median age of the children in the RCHSD analysis was 2.8 years, 62% were male, and 35% were Hispanic.

Overall, the prevalence of KD declined from 894 in 2018 to 646 in 2020, across the United States, but the decline was uneven, the researchers noted.

In the RCHSD cohort in San Diego, KD cases in children aged 1-5 years decreased significantly from 2020 to 2021 compared to the mean number of cases in previous years (22 vs. 44.9, P = .02). KD cases also decreased significantly among males and Asian children.

Notably, the occurrence of the KD clinical features of strawberry tongue, enlarged cervical lymph node, and subacute periungual desquamation decreased during 2020 compared with the baseline period, although only strawberry tongue reached statistical significance (39% vs. 63%, P = .04). The prevalence of patients with an enlarged lymph node was 21% in 2020 vs. 32% prior to the pandemic (P = .09); the prevalence of periungual desquamation during these periods was 47% vs. 58%, P = .16).

The researchers also used data from Census Block Groups (CBGs) to assess the impact of mobility metrics and environmental exposures on KD during the pandemic for the San Diego patient cohort. They found that KD cases during the pandemic were more likely to occur in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic status, and that neighborhoods with lower levels of nitrous oxides had fewer KD cases.

Overall, “The reduction in KD case numbers coincided with masking, school closures, reduced circulation of respiratory viruses, and reduced air pollution,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. “A rebound in KD case numbers to prepandemic levels coincided with the lifting of mask mandates and, subsequently, the return to in-person schooling,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample sizes, which also limit the interpretation of mobility and pollution data, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the high interannual variability of KD and the inclusion of 2021 rebound data from the San Diego region only.

“Although our original hypothesis was that shelter-in-place measures would track with reduced KD cases, this was not borne out by the San Diego region data. Instead, the San Diego case occurrence data suggest that exposures that triggered KD were more likely to occur in the home, with a shift toward households with higher SES during the pandemic,” the researchers noted. However, “The results presented here are consistent with a respiratory portal of entry for the trigger(s) of KD,” they said.
 

Study fails to validate its conclusions

“This study attempts to test the hypothesis that various social restrictions were associated with a decrease in rate of diagnosed Kawasaki disease cases during portions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“However, it appears that it fails to achieve this conclusion and I disagree with the findings,” said Dr. Gorelik, who was not involved in the study but served as first author on an updated Kawasaki disease treatment guideline published earlier this spring in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“The study does not find statistically significant associations either with shelter in place orders or with cell phone mobility data, as stated in the conclusion, directly contradicting its own claim,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Secondly, the study makes an assumption that various methods, especially the wearing of masks by children and school closures, had a significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. There are no prospective, population based, controlled real world studies that validate this claim, and two prospective controlled real-world studies that dispute this,” he emphasized. “Cloth masks and surgical masks, which were the types of masks worn by school students, are also known to have a nonsignificant and paltry – in the latter, certainly less than 50%, and perhaps as little as 10% – effect on the reduction of respiratory viral spread,” he added.

“Mechanistic studies on mask wearing may suggest some mask efficacy, but these studies are as valid as mechanistic studies showing the effect of various antifungal pharmaceuticals on the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in culture, meaning only valid as hypothesis generating, and ultimately the latter hypothesis failed to bear out,” Dr. Gorelik explained. “We do not know the reason why other respiratory viruses and non-SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses declined during the pandemic, but we do know that despite this, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself did not appear to suffer the same fate. Thus, it is very possible that another factor was at work, and we know that during other viral pandemics, typically circulating viruses decline, potentially due to induction of interferon responses in hosts, in a general effect known as ‘viral interference,’ ” he said.

“Overall, we must have robust evidence to support benefits of hypotheses that have demonstrated clear damage to children during this pandemic (such as school closures), and this study fails to live up to that requirement,” Dr. Gorelik said.  

The study was supported by the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Burney and Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Growing up, my dad would often go to his law office on weekends to get work done.

As a kid I didn’t really understand this. Dad had an office at home, and could close the door if he needed to. Usually he did this, but sometimes he left to go to his REAL office.

And now ... I sometimes do the same thing.

I don’t see patients on Fridays these days. In the postpandemic world my schedule still hasn’t returned to normal (maybe it never will and this is the new normal), and with research and case reviews and other stuff it seemed logical to just work from home and do them that day. My staff works from home, so if I’m not seeing patients, why can’t I?

After a few Fridays of this, I began going to my empty office, too, and understood where my dad was coming from.

My little solo office, as non-fancy as it is (the carpeting and interior are all from 1993), is quiet. From my back office I can’t hear the corridor hustle and bustle of people going to their appointments or arguing on a cell phone. Just the hum of the air conditioner and the occasional few seconds of a car alarm outside. If I put on iTunes no one complains about my musical tastes.

There isn’t much to do there BUT work, which is the idea. The building’s wifi is too slow to stream or watch Youtube. I’m not tempted to work on a puzzle with my daughter, take a book off a shelf, play with my dogs, or go down the hall for a nap. All the little things we do to procrastinate aren’t there, like convincing myself that I need to clean the pool or balance the checkbook ASAP.

I don’t have the distractions of my dogs barking at passing cars, or kids going up and down the hall, or the phone ringing with people asking who I’m voting for.

My little office is a private oasis, of sorts. Quiet and undisturbed.

Not quite Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, but close enough for me.

And, with all due respect to the Man of Steel, the Fortress of Solitude doesn’t have a Keurig.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Growing up, my dad would often go to his law office on weekends to get work done.

As a kid I didn’t really understand this. Dad had an office at home, and could close the door if he needed to. Usually he did this, but sometimes he left to go to his REAL office.

And now ... I sometimes do the same thing.

I don’t see patients on Fridays these days. In the postpandemic world my schedule still hasn’t returned to normal (maybe it never will and this is the new normal), and with research and case reviews and other stuff it seemed logical to just work from home and do them that day. My staff works from home, so if I’m not seeing patients, why can’t I?

After a few Fridays of this, I began going to my empty office, too, and understood where my dad was coming from.

My little solo office, as non-fancy as it is (the carpeting and interior are all from 1993), is quiet. From my back office I can’t hear the corridor hustle and bustle of people going to their appointments or arguing on a cell phone. Just the hum of the air conditioner and the occasional few seconds of a car alarm outside. If I put on iTunes no one complains about my musical tastes.

There isn’t much to do there BUT work, which is the idea. The building’s wifi is too slow to stream or watch Youtube. I’m not tempted to work on a puzzle with my daughter, take a book off a shelf, play with my dogs, or go down the hall for a nap. All the little things we do to procrastinate aren’t there, like convincing myself that I need to clean the pool or balance the checkbook ASAP.

I don’t have the distractions of my dogs barking at passing cars, or kids going up and down the hall, or the phone ringing with people asking who I’m voting for.

My little office is a private oasis, of sorts. Quiet and undisturbed.

Not quite Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, but close enough for me.

And, with all due respect to the Man of Steel, the Fortress of Solitude doesn’t have a Keurig.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Growing up, my dad would often go to his law office on weekends to get work done.

As a kid I didn’t really understand this. Dad had an office at home, and could close the door if he needed to. Usually he did this, but sometimes he left to go to his REAL office.

And now ... I sometimes do the same thing.

I don’t see patients on Fridays these days. In the postpandemic world my schedule still hasn’t returned to normal (maybe it never will and this is the new normal), and with research and case reviews and other stuff it seemed logical to just work from home and do them that day. My staff works from home, so if I’m not seeing patients, why can’t I?

After a few Fridays of this, I began going to my empty office, too, and understood where my dad was coming from.

My little solo office, as non-fancy as it is (the carpeting and interior are all from 1993), is quiet. From my back office I can’t hear the corridor hustle and bustle of people going to their appointments or arguing on a cell phone. Just the hum of the air conditioner and the occasional few seconds of a car alarm outside. If I put on iTunes no one complains about my musical tastes.

There isn’t much to do there BUT work, which is the idea. The building’s wifi is too slow to stream or watch Youtube. I’m not tempted to work on a puzzle with my daughter, take a book off a shelf, play with my dogs, or go down the hall for a nap. All the little things we do to procrastinate aren’t there, like convincing myself that I need to clean the pool or balance the checkbook ASAP.

I don’t have the distractions of my dogs barking at passing cars, or kids going up and down the hall, or the phone ringing with people asking who I’m voting for.

My little office is a private oasis, of sorts. Quiet and undisturbed.

Not quite Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, but close enough for me.

And, with all due respect to the Man of Steel, the Fortress of Solitude doesn’t have a Keurig.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Use of the targeted therapy combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years, compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy, new phase 3 data show.

Adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib to the two-drug combination pushed the 3-year PFS even higher, but the risk of severe adverse events may outweigh the benefits of the triple combination for some higher-risk patients.

“Time-limited targeted therapy with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, with or without ibrutinib, is superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to progression-free survival,” said first author Barbara Eichhorst, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany).

However, given higher rates of infection and other adverse events observed when adding ibrutinib, “I would say, based on this data, not to use the triple combination in clinical practice,” Dr. Eichhorst cautioned.

Dr. Eichhorst presented these late-breaking results at the European Hematology Association annual congress.

For patients considered unfit for chemoimmunotherapy, the fixed-duration therapy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has become standard treatment for CLL. For those deemed fit to withstand chemoimmunotherapy, this option remains the standard of care.

However, no studies have compared the targeted combination with chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients with CLL.

Dr. Eichhorst and colleagues conducted the GAIA/CLL13 trial to determine how the two- or three-drug targeted combinations stack up against standard chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients.

In the phase 3 study, 920 treatment-naive, fit patients with CLL in which there were no TP53 aberrations were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that each had 230 patients – standard chemoimmunotherapy or one of three time-limited venetoclax arms.

The regimen for the chemoimmunotherapy group included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab for those aged 65 and younger, and bendamustine and rituximab for those over 65. The patients who received venetoclax were divided into groups that received either venetoclax plus rituximab, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, or triple therapy of venetoclax, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib.

The median age was 61, and follow-up was just over 3 years (38.8 months). Nearly 40% of patients were in advanced Binet stages, and more than half (56%) were of unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH) status, which is associated with worse outcomes in CLL.

Compared with chemotherapy, the two-drug combination demonstrated significantly better PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; P < .000001), as did the triple therapy (HR, 0.42; P < .001), though the venetoclax-rituximab combination did not (HR, 0.79; P = .183).

The 3-year PFS rates were highest in the triple-therapy group (90.5%), followed by the venetoclax and obinutuzumab group (87.7%). The chemoimmunotherapy (75.5%) and venetoclax plus rituximab groups (80.8%) had the lowest 3-year PFS rates.

Overall, 3-year PFS rates for patients with unmutated IgVH were slightly lower, compared with those who had mutated IgVH.

The best PFS rate was among patients who received the 3-drug combination, although one interesting caveat emerged among the under-65 subset of patients in the mutated IgVH group: the chemotherapy arm achieved a slightly better PFS rate (95%) compared with the triple-therapy arm (93.6%).

Notably, overall survival was similar among all groups; about 96% of patients were alive at 3 years.

Several adverse events were more pronounced in the triple-therapy group. The highest rate of grade 3-4 infections was among those who received ibrutinib (22.1% vs. 20.4% for chemotherapy, 11.4% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 14.9% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab). The triple-therapy group also had the highest rate of hypertension (5.6% vs. 1.4% for chemotherapy, 2.1% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 1.8% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab).

Rates of febrile neutropenia and secondary primary malignancies, however, were highest in the chemoimmunotherapy group. More than 11% of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had febrile neutropenia, compared with 7.8% of those who received triple therapy, 4.2% in the venetoclax/rituximab group, and 3.1% of those who received venetoclax/obinutuzumab. Almost half of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had secondary primary malignancies versus fewer than 30% in the other arms.

EHA President-Elect António Almeida, MD, noted that the research sheds important light on evolving treatment options for CLL.

“The first is that the triple combination appears better than the double combinations, and I think that’s an important message because of longer treatment-free remission and progression-free remissions,” Dr. Almeida, of the Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, said in an interview.

The second important message: Given the time-limited administration of the venetoclax combinations, the data show that “we can stop ibrutinib and that is safe,” he added. “That’s quite important.”

Third, the findings can help guide treatment choices. “We’ve already had an indication that obinutuzumab is better than rituximab in the CLL setting, but this again solidifies that notion,” Dr. Almeida added.

Dr. Eichhorst has relationships with Janssen, Gilead, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Hexal. Dr. Almeida disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of the targeted therapy combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years, compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy, new phase 3 data show.

Adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib to the two-drug combination pushed the 3-year PFS even higher, but the risk of severe adverse events may outweigh the benefits of the triple combination for some higher-risk patients.

“Time-limited targeted therapy with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, with or without ibrutinib, is superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to progression-free survival,” said first author Barbara Eichhorst, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany).

However, given higher rates of infection and other adverse events observed when adding ibrutinib, “I would say, based on this data, not to use the triple combination in clinical practice,” Dr. Eichhorst cautioned.

Dr. Eichhorst presented these late-breaking results at the European Hematology Association annual congress.

For patients considered unfit for chemoimmunotherapy, the fixed-duration therapy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has become standard treatment for CLL. For those deemed fit to withstand chemoimmunotherapy, this option remains the standard of care.

However, no studies have compared the targeted combination with chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients with CLL.

Dr. Eichhorst and colleagues conducted the GAIA/CLL13 trial to determine how the two- or three-drug targeted combinations stack up against standard chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients.

In the phase 3 study, 920 treatment-naive, fit patients with CLL in which there were no TP53 aberrations were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that each had 230 patients – standard chemoimmunotherapy or one of three time-limited venetoclax arms.

The regimen for the chemoimmunotherapy group included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab for those aged 65 and younger, and bendamustine and rituximab for those over 65. The patients who received venetoclax were divided into groups that received either venetoclax plus rituximab, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, or triple therapy of venetoclax, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib.

The median age was 61, and follow-up was just over 3 years (38.8 months). Nearly 40% of patients were in advanced Binet stages, and more than half (56%) were of unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH) status, which is associated with worse outcomes in CLL.

Compared with chemotherapy, the two-drug combination demonstrated significantly better PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; P < .000001), as did the triple therapy (HR, 0.42; P < .001), though the venetoclax-rituximab combination did not (HR, 0.79; P = .183).

The 3-year PFS rates were highest in the triple-therapy group (90.5%), followed by the venetoclax and obinutuzumab group (87.7%). The chemoimmunotherapy (75.5%) and venetoclax plus rituximab groups (80.8%) had the lowest 3-year PFS rates.

Overall, 3-year PFS rates for patients with unmutated IgVH were slightly lower, compared with those who had mutated IgVH.

The best PFS rate was among patients who received the 3-drug combination, although one interesting caveat emerged among the under-65 subset of patients in the mutated IgVH group: the chemotherapy arm achieved a slightly better PFS rate (95%) compared with the triple-therapy arm (93.6%).

Notably, overall survival was similar among all groups; about 96% of patients were alive at 3 years.

Several adverse events were more pronounced in the triple-therapy group. The highest rate of grade 3-4 infections was among those who received ibrutinib (22.1% vs. 20.4% for chemotherapy, 11.4% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 14.9% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab). The triple-therapy group also had the highest rate of hypertension (5.6% vs. 1.4% for chemotherapy, 2.1% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 1.8% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab).

Rates of febrile neutropenia and secondary primary malignancies, however, were highest in the chemoimmunotherapy group. More than 11% of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had febrile neutropenia, compared with 7.8% of those who received triple therapy, 4.2% in the venetoclax/rituximab group, and 3.1% of those who received venetoclax/obinutuzumab. Almost half of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had secondary primary malignancies versus fewer than 30% in the other arms.

EHA President-Elect António Almeida, MD, noted that the research sheds important light on evolving treatment options for CLL.

“The first is that the triple combination appears better than the double combinations, and I think that’s an important message because of longer treatment-free remission and progression-free remissions,” Dr. Almeida, of the Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, said in an interview.

The second important message: Given the time-limited administration of the venetoclax combinations, the data show that “we can stop ibrutinib and that is safe,” he added. “That’s quite important.”

Third, the findings can help guide treatment choices. “We’ve already had an indication that obinutuzumab is better than rituximab in the CLL setting, but this again solidifies that notion,” Dr. Almeida added.

Dr. Eichhorst has relationships with Janssen, Gilead, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Hexal. Dr. Almeida disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of the targeted therapy combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years, compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy, new phase 3 data show.

Adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib to the two-drug combination pushed the 3-year PFS even higher, but the risk of severe adverse events may outweigh the benefits of the triple combination for some higher-risk patients.

“Time-limited targeted therapy with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, with or without ibrutinib, is superior to chemoimmunotherapy with respect to progression-free survival,” said first author Barbara Eichhorst, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany).

However, given higher rates of infection and other adverse events observed when adding ibrutinib, “I would say, based on this data, not to use the triple combination in clinical practice,” Dr. Eichhorst cautioned.

Dr. Eichhorst presented these late-breaking results at the European Hematology Association annual congress.

For patients considered unfit for chemoimmunotherapy, the fixed-duration therapy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has become standard treatment for CLL. For those deemed fit to withstand chemoimmunotherapy, this option remains the standard of care.

However, no studies have compared the targeted combination with chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients with CLL.

Dr. Eichhorst and colleagues conducted the GAIA/CLL13 trial to determine how the two- or three-drug targeted combinations stack up against standard chemoimmunotherapy for fit patients.

In the phase 3 study, 920 treatment-naive, fit patients with CLL in which there were no TP53 aberrations were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups that each had 230 patients – standard chemoimmunotherapy or one of three time-limited venetoclax arms.

The regimen for the chemoimmunotherapy group included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab for those aged 65 and younger, and bendamustine and rituximab for those over 65. The patients who received venetoclax were divided into groups that received either venetoclax plus rituximab, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, or triple therapy of venetoclax, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib.

The median age was 61, and follow-up was just over 3 years (38.8 months). Nearly 40% of patients were in advanced Binet stages, and more than half (56%) were of unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH) status, which is associated with worse outcomes in CLL.

Compared with chemotherapy, the two-drug combination demonstrated significantly better PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; P < .000001), as did the triple therapy (HR, 0.42; P < .001), though the venetoclax-rituximab combination did not (HR, 0.79; P = .183).

The 3-year PFS rates were highest in the triple-therapy group (90.5%), followed by the venetoclax and obinutuzumab group (87.7%). The chemoimmunotherapy (75.5%) and venetoclax plus rituximab groups (80.8%) had the lowest 3-year PFS rates.

Overall, 3-year PFS rates for patients with unmutated IgVH were slightly lower, compared with those who had mutated IgVH.

The best PFS rate was among patients who received the 3-drug combination, although one interesting caveat emerged among the under-65 subset of patients in the mutated IgVH group: the chemotherapy arm achieved a slightly better PFS rate (95%) compared with the triple-therapy arm (93.6%).

Notably, overall survival was similar among all groups; about 96% of patients were alive at 3 years.

Several adverse events were more pronounced in the triple-therapy group. The highest rate of grade 3-4 infections was among those who received ibrutinib (22.1% vs. 20.4% for chemotherapy, 11.4% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 14.9% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab). The triple-therapy group also had the highest rate of hypertension (5.6% vs. 1.4% for chemotherapy, 2.1% for venetoclax/rituximab, and 1.8% for venetoclax/obinutuzumab).

Rates of febrile neutropenia and secondary primary malignancies, however, were highest in the chemoimmunotherapy group. More than 11% of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had febrile neutropenia, compared with 7.8% of those who received triple therapy, 4.2% in the venetoclax/rituximab group, and 3.1% of those who received venetoclax/obinutuzumab. Almost half of patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group had secondary primary malignancies versus fewer than 30% in the other arms.

EHA President-Elect António Almeida, MD, noted that the research sheds important light on evolving treatment options for CLL.

“The first is that the triple combination appears better than the double combinations, and I think that’s an important message because of longer treatment-free remission and progression-free remissions,” Dr. Almeida, of the Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, said in an interview.

The second important message: Given the time-limited administration of the venetoclax combinations, the data show that “we can stop ibrutinib and that is safe,” he added. “That’s quite important.”

Third, the findings can help guide treatment choices. “We’ve already had an indication that obinutuzumab is better than rituximab in the CLL setting, but this again solidifies that notion,” Dr. Almeida added.

Dr. Eichhorst has relationships with Janssen, Gilead, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Hexal. Dr. Almeida disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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