Will Pass

Almost half of adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) reported poor adherence to long-term medical and dietary therapy, with age younger than 40 years and low necessity beliefs being the strongest predictors, a new study finds.

Clinicians need to spend more time discussing the need for EoE therapy with their patients, especially if they are younger, according to lead author Maria L. Haasnoot, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“Chronic treatment is necessary to maintain suppression of the inflammation and prevent negative outcomes in the long-term,” they write.

Until the recent approval of dupilumab (Dupixent) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, patients with EoE relied upon off-label options, including proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topical steroids, as well as dietary interventions for ongoing suppression of inflammation. But only about 1 in 6 patients achieve complete remission at 5 years, according to Dr. Haasnoot and colleagues.

“It is uncertain to what degree limited adherence to treatment [plays] a role in the limited long-term effects of treatment,” they write.

The findings were published online in American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Addressing a knowledge gap

The cross-sectional study involved 177 adult patients with EoE treated at Amsterdam UMC, who were prescribed dietary or medical maintenance therapy. Of note, some patients were treated with budesonide, which is approved for EoE in Europe but not in the United States.

Median participant age was 43 years, with a male-skewed distribution (71% men). Patients had been on EoE treatment for 2-6 years. Most (76%) were on medical treatments. Nearly half were on diets that avoided one to five food groups, with some on both medical treatments and elimination diets.

Using a link sent by mail, participants completed the online Medication Adherence Rating Scale, along with several other questionnaires, such as the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, to measure secondary outcomes, including a patient’s view of how necessary or disruptive maintenance therapy is in their life.

The overall prevalence of poor adherence to therapy was high (41.8%), including a nonsignificant difference in adherence between medical and dietary therapies.

“It might come as a surprise that dietary-treated patients are certainly not less adherent to treatment than medically treated patients,” the authors write, noting that the opposite is usually true.

Multivariate logistic regression showed that patients younger than 40 years were more than twice as likely to be poorly adherent (odds ratio, 2.571; 95% confidence interval, 1.195-5.532). Those with low necessity beliefs were more than four times as likely to be poorly adherent (OR, 4.423; 95% CI, 2.169-9.016). Other factors linked to poor adherence were patients with longer disease duration and more severe symptoms.

“Clinicians should pay more attention to treatment adherence, particularly in younger patients,” the authors conclude. “The necessity of treatment should be actively discussed, and efforts should be done to take doubts away, as this may improve treatment adherence and subsequently may improve treatment effects and long-term outcomes.”
 

More patient education needed

According to Jennifer L. Horsley-Silva, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., “This study is important, as it is one of the first studies to investigate the rate of treatment adherence in EoE patients and attempts to identify factors associated with adherence both in medically and dietary treated patients.”

Dr. Horsley-Silva commented that the findings align with recent research she and her colleagues conducted at the Mayo Clinic, where few patients successfully completed a six-food elimination diet, even when paired with a dietitian. As with the present study, success trended lower among younger adults. “These findings highlight the need for physicians treating EoE to motivate all patients, but especially younger patients, by discussing disease pathophysiology and explaining the reason for maintenance treatment early on,” Dr. Horsley-Silva said.

Conversations should also address the discordance between symptoms and histologic disease, patient doubts and concerns, and other barriers to adherence, she noted.

“Shared decisionmaking is of utmost importance when deciding upon a maintenance treatment strategy and should be readdressed continually,” she added.

Gary W. Falk, MD, of Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said that patients with EoE may be poorly adherent because therapies tend to be complicated and people often forget to take their medications, especially when their symptoms improve, even though this is a poor indicator of underlying disease. The discordance between symptoms and histology is “not commonly appreciated by the EoE GI community,” he noted.

Patients may benefit from knowing that untreated or undertreated EoE increases the risk for strictures and stenoses, need for dilation, and frequency of food bolus impactions, Dr. Falk said.

“The other thing we know is that once someone is induced into remission, and they stay on therapy ... long-term remission can be maintained,” he added.
 

The impact of Dupilumab

John Leung, MD, of Boston Food Allergy Center, also cited the complexities of EoE therapies as reason for poor adherence, though he believes this paradigm will shift now that dupilumab has been approved. Dupilumab injections are “just once a week, so it’s much easier in terms of frequency,” Dr. Leung said. “I would expect that the compliance [for dupilumab] will be better” than for older therapies.

Dr. Leung, who helped conduct the dupilumab clinical trials contributing to its approval for EoE and receives speaking honoraria from manufacturer Regeneron/Sanofi, said that dupilumab also overcomes the challenges with elimination diets while offering relief for concomitant conditions, such as “asthma, eczema, food allergies, and seasonal allergies.”

But Dr. Falk, who also worked on the dupilumab clinical trials, said the situation is “not straightforward,” even with FDA approval.

“There are going to be significant costs with [prescribing dupilumab], because it’s a biologic,” Dr. Falk said.

Dr. Falk also pointed out that prior authorization will be required, and until more studies can be conducted, the true impact of once-weekly dosing versus daily dosing remains unknown.

“I would say [dupilumab] has the potential to improve adherence, but we need to see if that’s going to be the case or not,” Dr. Falk said.

The authors disclosed relationships with Dr. Falk Pharma, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi/Regeneron (the manufacturers of Dupixent [dupilumab]), among others. Dr. Horsley-Silva, Dr. Falk, and Dr. Leung conducted clinical trials for dupilumab on behalf of Sanofi/Regeneron, with Dr. Leung also disclosing speaking honoraria from Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Horsley-Silva has acted as a clinical trial site principal investigator for Allakos and Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Almost half of adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) reported poor adherence to long-term medical and dietary therapy, with age younger than 40 years and low necessity beliefs being the strongest predictors, a new study finds.

Clinicians need to spend more time discussing the need for EoE therapy with their patients, especially if they are younger, according to lead author Maria L. Haasnoot, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“Chronic treatment is necessary to maintain suppression of the inflammation and prevent negative outcomes in the long-term,” they write.

Until the recent approval of dupilumab (Dupixent) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, patients with EoE relied upon off-label options, including proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topical steroids, as well as dietary interventions for ongoing suppression of inflammation. But only about 1 in 6 patients achieve complete remission at 5 years, according to Dr. Haasnoot and colleagues.

“It is uncertain to what degree limited adherence to treatment [plays] a role in the limited long-term effects of treatment,” they write.

The findings were published online in American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Addressing a knowledge gap

The cross-sectional study involved 177 adult patients with EoE treated at Amsterdam UMC, who were prescribed dietary or medical maintenance therapy. Of note, some patients were treated with budesonide, which is approved for EoE in Europe but not in the United States.

Median participant age was 43 years, with a male-skewed distribution (71% men). Patients had been on EoE treatment for 2-6 years. Most (76%) were on medical treatments. Nearly half were on diets that avoided one to five food groups, with some on both medical treatments and elimination diets.

Using a link sent by mail, participants completed the online Medication Adherence Rating Scale, along with several other questionnaires, such as the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, to measure secondary outcomes, including a patient’s view of how necessary or disruptive maintenance therapy is in their life.

The overall prevalence of poor adherence to therapy was high (41.8%), including a nonsignificant difference in adherence between medical and dietary therapies.

“It might come as a surprise that dietary-treated patients are certainly not less adherent to treatment than medically treated patients,” the authors write, noting that the opposite is usually true.

Multivariate logistic regression showed that patients younger than 40 years were more than twice as likely to be poorly adherent (odds ratio, 2.571; 95% confidence interval, 1.195-5.532). Those with low necessity beliefs were more than four times as likely to be poorly adherent (OR, 4.423; 95% CI, 2.169-9.016). Other factors linked to poor adherence were patients with longer disease duration and more severe symptoms.

“Clinicians should pay more attention to treatment adherence, particularly in younger patients,” the authors conclude. “The necessity of treatment should be actively discussed, and efforts should be done to take doubts away, as this may improve treatment adherence and subsequently may improve treatment effects and long-term outcomes.”
 

More patient education needed

According to Jennifer L. Horsley-Silva, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., “This study is important, as it is one of the first studies to investigate the rate of treatment adherence in EoE patients and attempts to identify factors associated with adherence both in medically and dietary treated patients.”

Dr. Horsley-Silva commented that the findings align with recent research she and her colleagues conducted at the Mayo Clinic, where few patients successfully completed a six-food elimination diet, even when paired with a dietitian. As with the present study, success trended lower among younger adults. “These findings highlight the need for physicians treating EoE to motivate all patients, but especially younger patients, by discussing disease pathophysiology and explaining the reason for maintenance treatment early on,” Dr. Horsley-Silva said.

Conversations should also address the discordance between symptoms and histologic disease, patient doubts and concerns, and other barriers to adherence, she noted.

“Shared decisionmaking is of utmost importance when deciding upon a maintenance treatment strategy and should be readdressed continually,” she added.

Gary W. Falk, MD, of Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said that patients with EoE may be poorly adherent because therapies tend to be complicated and people often forget to take their medications, especially when their symptoms improve, even though this is a poor indicator of underlying disease. The discordance between symptoms and histology is “not commonly appreciated by the EoE GI community,” he noted.

Patients may benefit from knowing that untreated or undertreated EoE increases the risk for strictures and stenoses, need for dilation, and frequency of food bolus impactions, Dr. Falk said.

“The other thing we know is that once someone is induced into remission, and they stay on therapy ... long-term remission can be maintained,” he added.
 

The impact of Dupilumab

John Leung, MD, of Boston Food Allergy Center, also cited the complexities of EoE therapies as reason for poor adherence, though he believes this paradigm will shift now that dupilumab has been approved. Dupilumab injections are “just once a week, so it’s much easier in terms of frequency,” Dr. Leung said. “I would expect that the compliance [for dupilumab] will be better” than for older therapies.

Dr. Leung, who helped conduct the dupilumab clinical trials contributing to its approval for EoE and receives speaking honoraria from manufacturer Regeneron/Sanofi, said that dupilumab also overcomes the challenges with elimination diets while offering relief for concomitant conditions, such as “asthma, eczema, food allergies, and seasonal allergies.”

But Dr. Falk, who also worked on the dupilumab clinical trials, said the situation is “not straightforward,” even with FDA approval.

“There are going to be significant costs with [prescribing dupilumab], because it’s a biologic,” Dr. Falk said.

Dr. Falk also pointed out that prior authorization will be required, and until more studies can be conducted, the true impact of once-weekly dosing versus daily dosing remains unknown.

“I would say [dupilumab] has the potential to improve adherence, but we need to see if that’s going to be the case or not,” Dr. Falk said.

The authors disclosed relationships with Dr. Falk Pharma, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi/Regeneron (the manufacturers of Dupixent [dupilumab]), among others. Dr. Horsley-Silva, Dr. Falk, and Dr. Leung conducted clinical trials for dupilumab on behalf of Sanofi/Regeneron, with Dr. Leung also disclosing speaking honoraria from Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Horsley-Silva has acted as a clinical trial site principal investigator for Allakos and Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Almost half of adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) reported poor adherence to long-term medical and dietary therapy, with age younger than 40 years and low necessity beliefs being the strongest predictors, a new study finds.

Clinicians need to spend more time discussing the need for EoE therapy with their patients, especially if they are younger, according to lead author Maria L. Haasnoot, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“Chronic treatment is necessary to maintain suppression of the inflammation and prevent negative outcomes in the long-term,” they write.

Until the recent approval of dupilumab (Dupixent) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, patients with EoE relied upon off-label options, including proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topical steroids, as well as dietary interventions for ongoing suppression of inflammation. But only about 1 in 6 patients achieve complete remission at 5 years, according to Dr. Haasnoot and colleagues.

“It is uncertain to what degree limited adherence to treatment [plays] a role in the limited long-term effects of treatment,” they write.

The findings were published online in American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Addressing a knowledge gap

The cross-sectional study involved 177 adult patients with EoE treated at Amsterdam UMC, who were prescribed dietary or medical maintenance therapy. Of note, some patients were treated with budesonide, which is approved for EoE in Europe but not in the United States.

Median participant age was 43 years, with a male-skewed distribution (71% men). Patients had been on EoE treatment for 2-6 years. Most (76%) were on medical treatments. Nearly half were on diets that avoided one to five food groups, with some on both medical treatments and elimination diets.

Using a link sent by mail, participants completed the online Medication Adherence Rating Scale, along with several other questionnaires, such as the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, to measure secondary outcomes, including a patient’s view of how necessary or disruptive maintenance therapy is in their life.

The overall prevalence of poor adherence to therapy was high (41.8%), including a nonsignificant difference in adherence between medical and dietary therapies.

“It might come as a surprise that dietary-treated patients are certainly not less adherent to treatment than medically treated patients,” the authors write, noting that the opposite is usually true.

Multivariate logistic regression showed that patients younger than 40 years were more than twice as likely to be poorly adherent (odds ratio, 2.571; 95% confidence interval, 1.195-5.532). Those with low necessity beliefs were more than four times as likely to be poorly adherent (OR, 4.423; 95% CI, 2.169-9.016). Other factors linked to poor adherence were patients with longer disease duration and more severe symptoms.

“Clinicians should pay more attention to treatment adherence, particularly in younger patients,” the authors conclude. “The necessity of treatment should be actively discussed, and efforts should be done to take doubts away, as this may improve treatment adherence and subsequently may improve treatment effects and long-term outcomes.”
 

More patient education needed

According to Jennifer L. Horsley-Silva, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., “This study is important, as it is one of the first studies to investigate the rate of treatment adherence in EoE patients and attempts to identify factors associated with adherence both in medically and dietary treated patients.”

Dr. Horsley-Silva commented that the findings align with recent research she and her colleagues conducted at the Mayo Clinic, where few patients successfully completed a six-food elimination diet, even when paired with a dietitian. As with the present study, success trended lower among younger adults. “These findings highlight the need for physicians treating EoE to motivate all patients, but especially younger patients, by discussing disease pathophysiology and explaining the reason for maintenance treatment early on,” Dr. Horsley-Silva said.

Conversations should also address the discordance between symptoms and histologic disease, patient doubts and concerns, and other barriers to adherence, she noted.

“Shared decisionmaking is of utmost importance when deciding upon a maintenance treatment strategy and should be readdressed continually,” she added.

Gary W. Falk, MD, of Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said that patients with EoE may be poorly adherent because therapies tend to be complicated and people often forget to take their medications, especially when their symptoms improve, even though this is a poor indicator of underlying disease. The discordance between symptoms and histology is “not commonly appreciated by the EoE GI community,” he noted.

Patients may benefit from knowing that untreated or undertreated EoE increases the risk for strictures and stenoses, need for dilation, and frequency of food bolus impactions, Dr. Falk said.

“The other thing we know is that once someone is induced into remission, and they stay on therapy ... long-term remission can be maintained,” he added.
 

The impact of Dupilumab

John Leung, MD, of Boston Food Allergy Center, also cited the complexities of EoE therapies as reason for poor adherence, though he believes this paradigm will shift now that dupilumab has been approved. Dupilumab injections are “just once a week, so it’s much easier in terms of frequency,” Dr. Leung said. “I would expect that the compliance [for dupilumab] will be better” than for older therapies.

Dr. Leung, who helped conduct the dupilumab clinical trials contributing to its approval for EoE and receives speaking honoraria from manufacturer Regeneron/Sanofi, said that dupilumab also overcomes the challenges with elimination diets while offering relief for concomitant conditions, such as “asthma, eczema, food allergies, and seasonal allergies.”

But Dr. Falk, who also worked on the dupilumab clinical trials, said the situation is “not straightforward,” even with FDA approval.

“There are going to be significant costs with [prescribing dupilumab], because it’s a biologic,” Dr. Falk said.

Dr. Falk also pointed out that prior authorization will be required, and until more studies can be conducted, the true impact of once-weekly dosing versus daily dosing remains unknown.

“I would say [dupilumab] has the potential to improve adherence, but we need to see if that’s going to be the case or not,” Dr. Falk said.

The authors disclosed relationships with Dr. Falk Pharma, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi/Regeneron (the manufacturers of Dupixent [dupilumab]), among others. Dr. Horsley-Silva, Dr. Falk, and Dr. Leung conducted clinical trials for dupilumab on behalf of Sanofi/Regeneron, with Dr. Leung also disclosing speaking honoraria from Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Horsley-Silva has acted as a clinical trial site principal investigator for Allakos and Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The American Gastroenterological Association has issued new guidelines for the medical treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

The guidelines, which are separated into one publication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and another for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), are the first to advise clinicians in the usage of new, old, and over-the-counter drugs for IBS, according to a press release from the AGA.

“With more treatments available, physicians can tailor a personalized approach based on the symptoms a patient with IBS is experiencing,” AGA said.

Published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, the two guidelines describe a shared rationale for their creation, noting how the treatment landscape has changed since the AGA last issued IBS guidelines in 2014.

IBS-C

In the IBS-C guidelines, co–first authors Lin Chang, MD, AGAF, of the University of Los Angeles, and Shahnaz Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, noted that IBS-C accounts for “more than a third of IBS cases,” with patients frequently reporting “feeling self-conscious, avoiding sex, difficulty concentrating, [and] not feeling able to reach one’s full potential.”

They offered nine pharmacologic recommendations, eight of which are conditional, with certainty in evidence ranging from low to high.

The only strong recommendation with a high certainty in evidence is for linaclotide.

“Across four RCTs [randomized controlled trials], linaclotide improved global assessment of IBS-C symptoms (FDA responder), abdominal pain, complete spontaneous bowel movement response, as well as adequate global response,” Dr. Chang and colleagues wrote.

Conditional recommendations with moderate certainty in evidence are provided for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone. Recommendations for polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants and antispasmodics are conditional and based on low-certainty evidence, as well as a conditional recommendation against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, also based on low-certainty evidence.

IBS-D

The IBS-D guidelines, led by co–first authors Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Dr. Sultan, includes eight conditional recommendations with certainty in evidence ranging from very low to moderate.

Drugs recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence include eluxadoline, alosetron, and rifaximin, with the added note that patients who respond to rifaximin but have recurrence should be treated again with rifaximin. Low-certainty evidence supported recommendations for tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics. Very low–certainty evidence stands behind a recommendation for loperamide. Again, the panel made a conditional recommendation against SSRIs, also based on low-certainty evidence.
 

Shared decision-making

Both publications concluded with similar statements about the importance of shared decision-making, plus a practical mindset, in management of IBS.

“Acknowledging that multimodal treatments that include dietary and behavioral approaches in conjunction with drug therapy may provide maximal benefits and that treatment choices may be influenced by patient preferences, practitioners should engage in shared decision-making with patients when choosing the best therapy,” Dr. Lembo and colleagues wrote. “The importance of the patient-physician relationship is paramount in caring for individuals with IBS, and understanding patient preferences (for side-effect tolerability as well as cost) is valuable in choosing the right therapy.”

Both guidelines noted that some newer drugs for IBS have no generic alternative, and preauthorization may be required. Payer approval may depend on previous treatment failure with generic alternatives, they added.

The guidelines were commissioned and funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed relationships with Ardelyx, Immunic, Protagonist, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association has issued new guidelines for the medical treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

The guidelines, which are separated into one publication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and another for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), are the first to advise clinicians in the usage of new, old, and over-the-counter drugs for IBS, according to a press release from the AGA.

“With more treatments available, physicians can tailor a personalized approach based on the symptoms a patient with IBS is experiencing,” AGA said.

Published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, the two guidelines describe a shared rationale for their creation, noting how the treatment landscape has changed since the AGA last issued IBS guidelines in 2014.

IBS-C

In the IBS-C guidelines, co–first authors Lin Chang, MD, AGAF, of the University of Los Angeles, and Shahnaz Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, noted that IBS-C accounts for “more than a third of IBS cases,” with patients frequently reporting “feeling self-conscious, avoiding sex, difficulty concentrating, [and] not feeling able to reach one’s full potential.”

They offered nine pharmacologic recommendations, eight of which are conditional, with certainty in evidence ranging from low to high.

The only strong recommendation with a high certainty in evidence is for linaclotide.

“Across four RCTs [randomized controlled trials], linaclotide improved global assessment of IBS-C symptoms (FDA responder), abdominal pain, complete spontaneous bowel movement response, as well as adequate global response,” Dr. Chang and colleagues wrote.

Conditional recommendations with moderate certainty in evidence are provided for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone. Recommendations for polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants and antispasmodics are conditional and based on low-certainty evidence, as well as a conditional recommendation against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, also based on low-certainty evidence.

IBS-D

The IBS-D guidelines, led by co–first authors Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Dr. Sultan, includes eight conditional recommendations with certainty in evidence ranging from very low to moderate.

Drugs recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence include eluxadoline, alosetron, and rifaximin, with the added note that patients who respond to rifaximin but have recurrence should be treated again with rifaximin. Low-certainty evidence supported recommendations for tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics. Very low–certainty evidence stands behind a recommendation for loperamide. Again, the panel made a conditional recommendation against SSRIs, also based on low-certainty evidence.
 

Shared decision-making

Both publications concluded with similar statements about the importance of shared decision-making, plus a practical mindset, in management of IBS.

“Acknowledging that multimodal treatments that include dietary and behavioral approaches in conjunction with drug therapy may provide maximal benefits and that treatment choices may be influenced by patient preferences, practitioners should engage in shared decision-making with patients when choosing the best therapy,” Dr. Lembo and colleagues wrote. “The importance of the patient-physician relationship is paramount in caring for individuals with IBS, and understanding patient preferences (for side-effect tolerability as well as cost) is valuable in choosing the right therapy.”

Both guidelines noted that some newer drugs for IBS have no generic alternative, and preauthorization may be required. Payer approval may depend on previous treatment failure with generic alternatives, they added.

The guidelines were commissioned and funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed relationships with Ardelyx, Immunic, Protagonist, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association has issued new guidelines for the medical treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

The guidelines, which are separated into one publication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and another for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), are the first to advise clinicians in the usage of new, old, and over-the-counter drugs for IBS, according to a press release from the AGA.

“With more treatments available, physicians can tailor a personalized approach based on the symptoms a patient with IBS is experiencing,” AGA said.

Published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, the two guidelines describe a shared rationale for their creation, noting how the treatment landscape has changed since the AGA last issued IBS guidelines in 2014.

IBS-C

In the IBS-C guidelines, co–first authors Lin Chang, MD, AGAF, of the University of Los Angeles, and Shahnaz Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, noted that IBS-C accounts for “more than a third of IBS cases,” with patients frequently reporting “feeling self-conscious, avoiding sex, difficulty concentrating, [and] not feeling able to reach one’s full potential.”

They offered nine pharmacologic recommendations, eight of which are conditional, with certainty in evidence ranging from low to high.

The only strong recommendation with a high certainty in evidence is for linaclotide.

“Across four RCTs [randomized controlled trials], linaclotide improved global assessment of IBS-C symptoms (FDA responder), abdominal pain, complete spontaneous bowel movement response, as well as adequate global response,” Dr. Chang and colleagues wrote.

Conditional recommendations with moderate certainty in evidence are provided for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone. Recommendations for polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants and antispasmodics are conditional and based on low-certainty evidence, as well as a conditional recommendation against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, also based on low-certainty evidence.

IBS-D

The IBS-D guidelines, led by co–first authors Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Dr. Sultan, includes eight conditional recommendations with certainty in evidence ranging from very low to moderate.

Drugs recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence include eluxadoline, alosetron, and rifaximin, with the added note that patients who respond to rifaximin but have recurrence should be treated again with rifaximin. Low-certainty evidence supported recommendations for tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics. Very low–certainty evidence stands behind a recommendation for loperamide. Again, the panel made a conditional recommendation against SSRIs, also based on low-certainty evidence.
 

Shared decision-making

Both publications concluded with similar statements about the importance of shared decision-making, plus a practical mindset, in management of IBS.

“Acknowledging that multimodal treatments that include dietary and behavioral approaches in conjunction with drug therapy may provide maximal benefits and that treatment choices may be influenced by patient preferences, practitioners should engage in shared decision-making with patients when choosing the best therapy,” Dr. Lembo and colleagues wrote. “The importance of the patient-physician relationship is paramount in caring for individuals with IBS, and understanding patient preferences (for side-effect tolerability as well as cost) is valuable in choosing the right therapy.”

Both guidelines noted that some newer drugs for IBS have no generic alternative, and preauthorization may be required. Payer approval may depend on previous treatment failure with generic alternatives, they added.

The guidelines were commissioned and funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed relationships with Ardelyx, Immunic, Protagonist, and others.

Children who attend center-based childcare are more likely to maintain a healthier body weight than children who receive nonparental, non–center-based care – especially if they come from lower-income families – a new study finds.

The findings of the prospective Canadian study suggest that professional childcare centers that engage in standard practices are having a positive and lasting impact on children’s health, reported lead author Michaela Kucab, RD, MHSc, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

“Attending center-based childcare in early childhood may influence important health behaviors including nutrition, physical activity, and routines related to child growth and weight status,” the investigators wrote in their abstract, which Ms. Kucab presented at the virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

Their study involved 3,503 children who attended childcare in Canada during early childhood (mean age at baseline was 2.7 years) with follow-up from ages 4-10.
 

Overweight/obesity risk reduced

Children who received full-time, center-based care had a 22% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean body mass index z score (zBMI) that was 0.11 points lower at age 4 and 7 years than those who received non–center-based care. The benefits of center-based care were even more pronounced among children from lower-income families, who, at age 10, had a 48% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean zBMI that was 0.32 points lower with center-based versus non–center-based care.

In a written comment, Ms. Kucab and principal author Jonathon Maguire, MD, MSc, of the University of Toronto, explained that the former difference in zBMI translates to approximately half a pound of bodyweight in an average child, whereas the larger difference in zBMI among children from lower-income families would amount to approximately three pounds. They emphasized that these are rough estimations.

Ms. Kucab and Dr. Maguire noted that body weight differences correlated with the amount of time spent in center-based care.

“There was an observed trend, whereby the estimated mean difference [in zBMI] became slightly larger (or stronger) with a higher intensity of center-based childcare compared to non–center-based childcare,” they said.

To learn more about the earliest impacts of center-based care, the investigators are conducting a clinical trial, The Nutrition Recommendation Intervention Trials in Children’s Health Care (NuRISH), which will involve 600 children aged younger than 2 years.
 

Center-based childcare may reduce disadvantages of low-income children

“Although more research is needed, our findings suggest that center-based childcare may help” reduce disadvantages children from low-income families experience related to their heath,” Ms. Kucab said in a press release.

Laurent Legault, MD, an associate professor specializing in endocrinology in the department of pediatrics at McGill University, Montreal, highlighted the “quite significant” sample size of more than 3,000 participants, noting that “it’s quite tough to have numerous children” involved in a study, especially with several years of follow-up.

Dr. Legault also praised the investigators for considering socioeconomic status, “which is absolutely paramount, because, unfortunately, it’s not necessarily an even playing field for these families.”

He said the findings deserve to be promoted, as they highlight the benefits of center-based care, including ones with room for physical activity, opportunities for social interaction with other children, and a structured routine.

Still, Dr. Legault said it’s “very difficult to pinpoint specifically” what led to healthier body weights. “The problem, of course, is that obesity is very multifactorial in nature,” although “early intervention is more likely to be efficient.”

Center-based care appears to be one such intervention, he said, which should “push people to make centered care more affordable and easy to access for everyone.”The investigators and Dr. Legault reported no conflicts of interest.

Children who attend center-based childcare are more likely to maintain a healthier body weight than children who receive nonparental, non–center-based care – especially if they come from lower-income families – a new study finds.

The findings of the prospective Canadian study suggest that professional childcare centers that engage in standard practices are having a positive and lasting impact on children’s health, reported lead author Michaela Kucab, RD, MHSc, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

“Attending center-based childcare in early childhood may influence important health behaviors including nutrition, physical activity, and routines related to child growth and weight status,” the investigators wrote in their abstract, which Ms. Kucab presented at the virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

Their study involved 3,503 children who attended childcare in Canada during early childhood (mean age at baseline was 2.7 years) with follow-up from ages 4-10.
 

Overweight/obesity risk reduced

Children who received full-time, center-based care had a 22% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean body mass index z score (zBMI) that was 0.11 points lower at age 4 and 7 years than those who received non–center-based care. The benefits of center-based care were even more pronounced among children from lower-income families, who, at age 10, had a 48% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean zBMI that was 0.32 points lower with center-based versus non–center-based care.

In a written comment, Ms. Kucab and principal author Jonathon Maguire, MD, MSc, of the University of Toronto, explained that the former difference in zBMI translates to approximately half a pound of bodyweight in an average child, whereas the larger difference in zBMI among children from lower-income families would amount to approximately three pounds. They emphasized that these are rough estimations.

Ms. Kucab and Dr. Maguire noted that body weight differences correlated with the amount of time spent in center-based care.

“There was an observed trend, whereby the estimated mean difference [in zBMI] became slightly larger (or stronger) with a higher intensity of center-based childcare compared to non–center-based childcare,” they said.

To learn more about the earliest impacts of center-based care, the investigators are conducting a clinical trial, The Nutrition Recommendation Intervention Trials in Children’s Health Care (NuRISH), which will involve 600 children aged younger than 2 years.
 

Center-based childcare may reduce disadvantages of low-income children

“Although more research is needed, our findings suggest that center-based childcare may help” reduce disadvantages children from low-income families experience related to their heath,” Ms. Kucab said in a press release.

Laurent Legault, MD, an associate professor specializing in endocrinology in the department of pediatrics at McGill University, Montreal, highlighted the “quite significant” sample size of more than 3,000 participants, noting that “it’s quite tough to have numerous children” involved in a study, especially with several years of follow-up.

Dr. Legault also praised the investigators for considering socioeconomic status, “which is absolutely paramount, because, unfortunately, it’s not necessarily an even playing field for these families.”

He said the findings deserve to be promoted, as they highlight the benefits of center-based care, including ones with room for physical activity, opportunities for social interaction with other children, and a structured routine.

Still, Dr. Legault said it’s “very difficult to pinpoint specifically” what led to healthier body weights. “The problem, of course, is that obesity is very multifactorial in nature,” although “early intervention is more likely to be efficient.”

Center-based care appears to be one such intervention, he said, which should “push people to make centered care more affordable and easy to access for everyone.”The investigators and Dr. Legault reported no conflicts of interest.

Children who attend center-based childcare are more likely to maintain a healthier body weight than children who receive nonparental, non–center-based care – especially if they come from lower-income families – a new study finds.

The findings of the prospective Canadian study suggest that professional childcare centers that engage in standard practices are having a positive and lasting impact on children’s health, reported lead author Michaela Kucab, RD, MHSc, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

“Attending center-based childcare in early childhood may influence important health behaviors including nutrition, physical activity, and routines related to child growth and weight status,” the investigators wrote in their abstract, which Ms. Kucab presented at the virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

Their study involved 3,503 children who attended childcare in Canada during early childhood (mean age at baseline was 2.7 years) with follow-up from ages 4-10.
 

Overweight/obesity risk reduced

Children who received full-time, center-based care had a 22% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean body mass index z score (zBMI) that was 0.11 points lower at age 4 and 7 years than those who received non–center-based care. The benefits of center-based care were even more pronounced among children from lower-income families, who, at age 10, had a 48% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean zBMI that was 0.32 points lower with center-based versus non–center-based care.

In a written comment, Ms. Kucab and principal author Jonathon Maguire, MD, MSc, of the University of Toronto, explained that the former difference in zBMI translates to approximately half a pound of bodyweight in an average child, whereas the larger difference in zBMI among children from lower-income families would amount to approximately three pounds. They emphasized that these are rough estimations.

Ms. Kucab and Dr. Maguire noted that body weight differences correlated with the amount of time spent in center-based care.

“There was an observed trend, whereby the estimated mean difference [in zBMI] became slightly larger (or stronger) with a higher intensity of center-based childcare compared to non–center-based childcare,” they said.

To learn more about the earliest impacts of center-based care, the investigators are conducting a clinical trial, The Nutrition Recommendation Intervention Trials in Children’s Health Care (NuRISH), which will involve 600 children aged younger than 2 years.
 

Center-based childcare may reduce disadvantages of low-income children

“Although more research is needed, our findings suggest that center-based childcare may help” reduce disadvantages children from low-income families experience related to their heath,” Ms. Kucab said in a press release.

Laurent Legault, MD, an associate professor specializing in endocrinology in the department of pediatrics at McGill University, Montreal, highlighted the “quite significant” sample size of more than 3,000 participants, noting that “it’s quite tough to have numerous children” involved in a study, especially with several years of follow-up.

Dr. Legault also praised the investigators for considering socioeconomic status, “which is absolutely paramount, because, unfortunately, it’s not necessarily an even playing field for these families.”

He said the findings deserve to be promoted, as they highlight the benefits of center-based care, including ones with room for physical activity, opportunities for social interaction with other children, and a structured routine.

Still, Dr. Legault said it’s “very difficult to pinpoint specifically” what led to healthier body weights. “The problem, of course, is that obesity is very multifactorial in nature,” although “early intervention is more likely to be efficient.”

Center-based care appears to be one such intervention, he said, which should “push people to make centered care more affordable and easy to access for everyone.”The investigators and Dr. Legault reported no conflicts of interest.

The American Gastroenterological Association has published eight position statements aimed at reducing the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC).

The evidence-based statements, published in Gastroenterology, call for a national approach to CRC screening, outline the elements of a high-quality screening program, and make clear that payers should cover all costs, from bowel prep through pathology, plus follow-up for high-risk patients.

“There is strong evidence that CRC screening is effective [at reducing CRC incidence and mortality] ... but less than 70% of eligible individuals have been screened,” wrote authors led by David Lieberman, MD, who is on the AGA Executive Committee on the Screening Continuum and affiliated with Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, noting the recent expansion of eligibility to include individuals in the 45- to 49-year age group.

“CRC screening saves lives, but only if people get screened,” Dr. Lieberman said in a press release from the AGA. “Cost sharing is an important barrier to screening, which contributes to racial, ethnic and socioeconomic inequities in colorectal cancer outcomes. The full cost of screening – including noninvasive tests and follow-up colonoscopies – should be covered without cost to patients.”

He added: “AGA wishes to collaborate with stakeholders to eliminate obstacles to screening, which disproportionately impact those with low income and lack of insurance.”

Eliminating disparities in screening

Among the position statements, Dr. Lieberman and colleagues first called for “development of a national approach to CRC screening” to patch gaps in access across the United States.

“Systematic outreach occurs infrequently,” they noted. “CRC screening prevalence is much lower among individuals who do not have access to health care due to lack of insurance, do not have a primary care provider, or are part of a medically underserved community.”

According to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues, the AGA is also “working with a broad coalition of stakeholders,” such as the American Cancer Society, payers, patient advocacy groups, and others, to create a “national resource ... focused on ensuring high-quality CRC screening and eliminating barriers to CRC screening.”

Specifically, the coalition will work to collectively tackle “disparities created by social determinants of health, which includes lack of access to screening, transportation, and even work hours and child care.

“The AGA recognizes that moving the needle to achieve a CRC screening participation goal of 80% will take a village,” they wrote.
 

Elements of high-quality CRC screening

The investigators went on to describe the key features of a high-quality CRC screening program, including “colonoscopy and noninvasive screening options, patient education, outreach, and navigation support.”

Dr. Lieberman and colleagues pointed out that offering more than one type of screening test “acknowledges patient preferences and improves participation.”

Certain noninvasive methods, such as fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), eliminate “important barriers” to screening, they noted, such as the need for special preparation, time off work, and transportation to a medical facility.

For individuals who have high-risk adenomas (HRAs) or advanced sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), screening should be expanded to include follow-up, the investigators added.

“Evidence from a systematic review demonstrates that individuals with HRAs at baseline have a 3- to 4-fold higher risk of incident CRC during follow-up compared with individuals with no adenoma or low-risk adenomas,” they wrote. “There is also evidence that individuals with advanced SSLs have a three= to fourfold higher risk of CRC, compared with individuals with nonadvanced SSLs.”
 

Payers should cover costs

To further improve access to care, payers should cover the full costs of CRC screening because “copays and deductibles are barriers to screening and contribute to socioeconomic disparities,” that “disproportionately impact those with low income and lack of insurance,” according to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues.

They noted that the Affordable Care Act “eliminated copayments for preventive services,” yet a recent study showed that almost half of patients with commercial insurance and more than three-quarters of patients with Medicare still share some cost of CRC screening.

The investigators made clear that payers need to cover costs from start to finish, including “bowel preparation, facility and professional fees, anesthesia, and pathology,” as well as follow-up screening for high-risk patients identified by noninvasive methods.

“Noninvasive colorectal screening should be considered as programs with multiple steps, each of which, including follow-up colonoscopy if the test is positive, should be covered by payers without cost sharing as part of the screening continuum,” Dr. Lieberman and colleagues wrote.
 

Changes underway

According to Steven Itzkowitz, MD, professor of medicine and oncological sciences and director of the gastroenterology fellowship training program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the AGA publication is important because it “consolidates many of the critical issues related to decreasing the burden of colorectal cancer in the United States.”

Dr. Itzkowitz noted that changes are already underway to eliminate cost as a barrier to screening.

“The good news is that, in the past year, the Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury declared that cost sharing should not be imposed, and plans are required to cover screening colonoscopy with polyp removal and colonoscopy that is performed to follow-up after an abnormal noninvasive CRC screening test,” Dr. Itzkowitz said in an interview. “Many plans are following suit, but it will take time for this coverage to take effect across all plans.”

For individual gastroenterologists who would like to do their part in reducing screening inequity, Dr. Itzkowitz suggested leveraging noninvasive testing, as the AGA recommends.

“This publication is the latest to call for using noninvasive, stool-based testing in addition to colonoscopy,” Dr. Itzkowitz said. “FIT and multitarget stool DNA tests all have proven efficacy in this regard, so gastroenterologists should have those conversations with their patients. GIs can also make it easier for patients to complete colonoscopy by developing patient navigation programs, direct access referrals, and systems for communicating with primary care providers for easier referrals and communicating colonoscopy results.”

Many practices are already instituting such improvements in response to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Dr. Itzkowitz.“These changes, plus better coverage by payers, will make a huge impact on health equity when it comes to colorectal cancer screening.”

The publication was supported by the AGA. The investigators disclosed relationships with Geneoscopy, ColoWrap, UniversalDx, and others. Dr. Itzkowitz disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Groups interested in collaborating with AGA should contact Kathleen Teixeira, AGA Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy, at kteixeira@gastro.org. 

The American Gastroenterological Association has published eight position statements aimed at reducing the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC).

The evidence-based statements, published in Gastroenterology, call for a national approach to CRC screening, outline the elements of a high-quality screening program, and make clear that payers should cover all costs, from bowel prep through pathology, plus follow-up for high-risk patients.

“There is strong evidence that CRC screening is effective [at reducing CRC incidence and mortality] ... but less than 70% of eligible individuals have been screened,” wrote authors led by David Lieberman, MD, who is on the AGA Executive Committee on the Screening Continuum and affiliated with Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, noting the recent expansion of eligibility to include individuals in the 45- to 49-year age group.

“CRC screening saves lives, but only if people get screened,” Dr. Lieberman said in a press release from the AGA. “Cost sharing is an important barrier to screening, which contributes to racial, ethnic and socioeconomic inequities in colorectal cancer outcomes. The full cost of screening – including noninvasive tests and follow-up colonoscopies – should be covered without cost to patients.”

He added: “AGA wishes to collaborate with stakeholders to eliminate obstacles to screening, which disproportionately impact those with low income and lack of insurance.”

Eliminating disparities in screening

Among the position statements, Dr. Lieberman and colleagues first called for “development of a national approach to CRC screening” to patch gaps in access across the United States.

“Systematic outreach occurs infrequently,” they noted. “CRC screening prevalence is much lower among individuals who do not have access to health care due to lack of insurance, do not have a primary care provider, or are part of a medically underserved community.”

According to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues, the AGA is also “working with a broad coalition of stakeholders,” such as the American Cancer Society, payers, patient advocacy groups, and others, to create a “national resource ... focused on ensuring high-quality CRC screening and eliminating barriers to CRC screening.”

Specifically, the coalition will work to collectively tackle “disparities created by social determinants of health, which includes lack of access to screening, transportation, and even work hours and child care.

“The AGA recognizes that moving the needle to achieve a CRC screening participation goal of 80% will take a village,” they wrote.
 

Elements of high-quality CRC screening

The investigators went on to describe the key features of a high-quality CRC screening program, including “colonoscopy and noninvasive screening options, patient education, outreach, and navigation support.”

Dr. Lieberman and colleagues pointed out that offering more than one type of screening test “acknowledges patient preferences and improves participation.”

Certain noninvasive methods, such as fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), eliminate “important barriers” to screening, they noted, such as the need for special preparation, time off work, and transportation to a medical facility.

For individuals who have high-risk adenomas (HRAs) or advanced sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), screening should be expanded to include follow-up, the investigators added.

“Evidence from a systematic review demonstrates that individuals with HRAs at baseline have a 3- to 4-fold higher risk of incident CRC during follow-up compared with individuals with no adenoma or low-risk adenomas,” they wrote. “There is also evidence that individuals with advanced SSLs have a three= to fourfold higher risk of CRC, compared with individuals with nonadvanced SSLs.”
 

Payers should cover costs

To further improve access to care, payers should cover the full costs of CRC screening because “copays and deductibles are barriers to screening and contribute to socioeconomic disparities,” that “disproportionately impact those with low income and lack of insurance,” according to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues.

They noted that the Affordable Care Act “eliminated copayments for preventive services,” yet a recent study showed that almost half of patients with commercial insurance and more than three-quarters of patients with Medicare still share some cost of CRC screening.

The investigators made clear that payers need to cover costs from start to finish, including “bowel preparation, facility and professional fees, anesthesia, and pathology,” as well as follow-up screening for high-risk patients identified by noninvasive methods.

“Noninvasive colorectal screening should be considered as programs with multiple steps, each of which, including follow-up colonoscopy if the test is positive, should be covered by payers without cost sharing as part of the screening continuum,” Dr. Lieberman and colleagues wrote.
 

Changes underway

According to Steven Itzkowitz, MD, professor of medicine and oncological sciences and director of the gastroenterology fellowship training program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the AGA publication is important because it “consolidates many of the critical issues related to decreasing the burden of colorectal cancer in the United States.”

Dr. Itzkowitz noted that changes are already underway to eliminate cost as a barrier to screening.

“The good news is that, in the past year, the Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury declared that cost sharing should not be imposed, and plans are required to cover screening colonoscopy with polyp removal and colonoscopy that is performed to follow-up after an abnormal noninvasive CRC screening test,” Dr. Itzkowitz said in an interview. “Many plans are following suit, but it will take time for this coverage to take effect across all plans.”

For individual gastroenterologists who would like to do their part in reducing screening inequity, Dr. Itzkowitz suggested leveraging noninvasive testing, as the AGA recommends.

“This publication is the latest to call for using noninvasive, stool-based testing in addition to colonoscopy,” Dr. Itzkowitz said. “FIT and multitarget stool DNA tests all have proven efficacy in this regard, so gastroenterologists should have those conversations with their patients. GIs can also make it easier for patients to complete colonoscopy by developing patient navigation programs, direct access referrals, and systems for communicating with primary care providers for easier referrals and communicating colonoscopy results.”

Many practices are already instituting such improvements in response to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Dr. Itzkowitz.“These changes, plus better coverage by payers, will make a huge impact on health equity when it comes to colorectal cancer screening.”

The publication was supported by the AGA. The investigators disclosed relationships with Geneoscopy, ColoWrap, UniversalDx, and others. Dr. Itzkowitz disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Groups interested in collaborating with AGA should contact Kathleen Teixeira, AGA Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy, at kteixeira@gastro.org. 

The American Gastroenterological Association has published eight position statements aimed at reducing the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC).

The evidence-based statements, published in Gastroenterology, call for a national approach to CRC screening, outline the elements of a high-quality screening program, and make clear that payers should cover all costs, from bowel prep through pathology, plus follow-up for high-risk patients.

“There is strong evidence that CRC screening is effective [at reducing CRC incidence and mortality] ... but less than 70% of eligible individuals have been screened,” wrote authors led by David Lieberman, MD, who is on the AGA Executive Committee on the Screening Continuum and affiliated with Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, noting the recent expansion of eligibility to include individuals in the 45- to 49-year age group.

“CRC screening saves lives, but only if people get screened,” Dr. Lieberman said in a press release from the AGA. “Cost sharing is an important barrier to screening, which contributes to racial, ethnic and socioeconomic inequities in colorectal cancer outcomes. The full cost of screening – including noninvasive tests and follow-up colonoscopies – should be covered without cost to patients.”

He added: “AGA wishes to collaborate with stakeholders to eliminate obstacles to screening, which disproportionately impact those with low income and lack of insurance.”

Eliminating disparities in screening

Among the position statements, Dr. Lieberman and colleagues first called for “development of a national approach to CRC screening” to patch gaps in access across the United States.

“Systematic outreach occurs infrequently,” they noted. “CRC screening prevalence is much lower among individuals who do not have access to health care due to lack of insurance, do not have a primary care provider, or are part of a medically underserved community.”

According to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues, the AGA is also “working with a broad coalition of stakeholders,” such as the American Cancer Society, payers, patient advocacy groups, and others, to create a “national resource ... focused on ensuring high-quality CRC screening and eliminating barriers to CRC screening.”

Specifically, the coalition will work to collectively tackle “disparities created by social determinants of health, which includes lack of access to screening, transportation, and even work hours and child care.

“The AGA recognizes that moving the needle to achieve a CRC screening participation goal of 80% will take a village,” they wrote.
 

Elements of high-quality CRC screening

The investigators went on to describe the key features of a high-quality CRC screening program, including “colonoscopy and noninvasive screening options, patient education, outreach, and navigation support.”

Dr. Lieberman and colleagues pointed out that offering more than one type of screening test “acknowledges patient preferences and improves participation.”

Certain noninvasive methods, such as fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), eliminate “important barriers” to screening, they noted, such as the need for special preparation, time off work, and transportation to a medical facility.

For individuals who have high-risk adenomas (HRAs) or advanced sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), screening should be expanded to include follow-up, the investigators added.

“Evidence from a systematic review demonstrates that individuals with HRAs at baseline have a 3- to 4-fold higher risk of incident CRC during follow-up compared with individuals with no adenoma or low-risk adenomas,” they wrote. “There is also evidence that individuals with advanced SSLs have a three= to fourfold higher risk of CRC, compared with individuals with nonadvanced SSLs.”
 

Payers should cover costs

To further improve access to care, payers should cover the full costs of CRC screening because “copays and deductibles are barriers to screening and contribute to socioeconomic disparities,” that “disproportionately impact those with low income and lack of insurance,” according to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues.

They noted that the Affordable Care Act “eliminated copayments for preventive services,” yet a recent study showed that almost half of patients with commercial insurance and more than three-quarters of patients with Medicare still share some cost of CRC screening.

The investigators made clear that payers need to cover costs from start to finish, including “bowel preparation, facility and professional fees, anesthesia, and pathology,” as well as follow-up screening for high-risk patients identified by noninvasive methods.

“Noninvasive colorectal screening should be considered as programs with multiple steps, each of which, including follow-up colonoscopy if the test is positive, should be covered by payers without cost sharing as part of the screening continuum,” Dr. Lieberman and colleagues wrote.
 

Changes underway

According to Steven Itzkowitz, MD, professor of medicine and oncological sciences and director of the gastroenterology fellowship training program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the AGA publication is important because it “consolidates many of the critical issues related to decreasing the burden of colorectal cancer in the United States.”

Dr. Itzkowitz noted that changes are already underway to eliminate cost as a barrier to screening.

“The good news is that, in the past year, the Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury declared that cost sharing should not be imposed, and plans are required to cover screening colonoscopy with polyp removal and colonoscopy that is performed to follow-up after an abnormal noninvasive CRC screening test,” Dr. Itzkowitz said in an interview. “Many plans are following suit, but it will take time for this coverage to take effect across all plans.”

For individual gastroenterologists who would like to do their part in reducing screening inequity, Dr. Itzkowitz suggested leveraging noninvasive testing, as the AGA recommends.

“This publication is the latest to call for using noninvasive, stool-based testing in addition to colonoscopy,” Dr. Itzkowitz said. “FIT and multitarget stool DNA tests all have proven efficacy in this regard, so gastroenterologists should have those conversations with their patients. GIs can also make it easier for patients to complete colonoscopy by developing patient navigation programs, direct access referrals, and systems for communicating with primary care providers for easier referrals and communicating colonoscopy results.”

Many practices are already instituting such improvements in response to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Dr. Itzkowitz.“These changes, plus better coverage by payers, will make a huge impact on health equity when it comes to colorectal cancer screening.”

The publication was supported by the AGA. The investigators disclosed relationships with Geneoscopy, ColoWrap, UniversalDx, and others. Dr. Itzkowitz disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Groups interested in collaborating with AGA should contact Kathleen Teixeira, AGA Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy, at kteixeira@gastro.org. 

The American Gastroenterological Association has published eight position statements aimed at reducing the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC).

The evidence-based statements, published in Gastroenterology, call for a national approach to CRC screening, outline the elements of a high-quality screening program, and make clear that payers should cover all costs, from bowel prep through pathology, plus follow-up for high-risk patients.

“There is strong evidence that CRC screening is effective [at reducing CRC incidence and mortality] ... but less than 70% of eligible individuals have been screened,” wrote authors led by David Lieberman, MD, who is on the AGA Executive Committee on the Screening Continuum and affiliated with Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, noting the recent expansion of eligibility to include individuals in the 45- to 49-year age group.

“CRC screening saves lives, but only if people get screened,” Dr. Lieberman said in a press release from the AGA. “Cost sharing is an important barrier to screening, which contributes to racial, ethnic and socioeconomic inequities in colorectal cancer outcomes. The full cost of screening – including noninvasive tests and follow-up colonoscopies – should be covered without cost to patients.”

Eliminating disparities in screening

Among the position statements, Dr. Lieberman and colleagues first called for “development of a national approach to CRC screening” to patch gaps in access across the United States.

“Systematic outreach occurs infrequently,” they noted. “CRC screening prevalence is much lower among individuals who do not have access to health care due to lack of insurance, do not have a primary care provider, or are part of a medically underserved community.”

According to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues, the AGA is also “working with a broad coalition of stakeholders,” such as the American Cancer Society, payers, patient advocacy groups, and others, to create a “national resource ... focused on ensuring high-quality CRC screening and eliminating barriers to CRC screening.”

Specifically, the coalition will work to collectively tackle “disparities created by social determinants of health, which includes lack of access to screening, transportation, and even work hours and child care.

“The AGA recognizes that moving the needle to achieve a CRC screening participation goal of 80% will take a village,” they wrote.

Elements of high-quality CRC screening

The investigators went on to describe the key features of a high-quality CRC screening program, including “colonoscopy and noninvasive screening options, patient education, outreach, and navigation support.”

Dr. Lieberman and colleagues pointed out that offering more than one type of screening test “acknowledges patient preferences and improves participation.”

Certain noninvasive methods, such as fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), eliminate “important barriers” to screening, they noted, such as the need for special preparation, time off work, and transportation to a medical facility.

For individuals who have high-risk adenomas (HRAs) or advanced sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), screening should be expanded to include follow-up, the investigators added.

“Evidence from a systematic review demonstrates that individuals with HRAs at baseline have a 3- to 4-fold higher risk of incident CRC during follow-up compared with individuals with no adenoma or low-risk adenomas,” they wrote. “There is also evidence that individuals with advanced SSLs have a three= to fourfold higher risk of CRC, compared with individuals with nonadvanced SSLs.”
 

Payers should cover costs

To further improve access to care, payers should cover the full costs of CRC screening because “copays and deductibles are barriers to screening and contribute to socioeconomic disparities,” that “disproportionately impact those with low income and lack of insurance,” according to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues.

They noted that the Affordable Care Act “eliminated copayments for preventive services,” yet a recent study showed that almost half of patients with commercial insurance and more than three-quarters of patients with Medicare still share some cost of CRC screening.

The investigators made clear that payers need to cover costs from start to finish, including “bowel preparation, facility and professional fees, anesthesia, and pathology,” as well as follow-up screening for high-risk patients identified by noninvasive methods.

“Noninvasive colorectal screening should be considered as programs with multiple steps, each of which, including follow-up colonoscopy if the test is positive, should be covered by payers without cost sharing as part of the screening continuum,” Dr. Lieberman and colleagues wrote.
 

Changes underway

According to Steven Itzkowitz, MD, professor of medicine and oncological sciences and director of the gastroenterology fellowship training program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the AGA publication is important because it “consolidates many of the critical issues related to decreasing the burden of colorectal cancer in the United States.”

Dr. Itzkowitz noted that changes are already underway to eliminate cost as a barrier to screening.

“The good news is that, in the past year, the Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury declared that cost sharing should not be imposed, and plans are required to cover screening colonoscopy with polyp removal and colonoscopy that is performed to follow-up after an abnormal noninvasive CRC screening test,” Dr. Itzkowitz said in an interview. “Many plans are following suit, but it will take time for this coverage to take effect across all plans.”

For individual gastroenterologists who would like to do their part in reducing screening inequity, Dr. Itzkowitz suggested leveraging noninvasive testing, as the AGA recommends.

“This publication is the latest to call for using noninvasive, stool-based testing in addition to colonoscopy,” Dr. Itzkowitz said. “FIT and multitarget stool DNA tests all have proven efficacy in this regard, so gastroenterologists should have those conversations with their patients. GIs can also make it easier for patients to complete colonoscopy by developing patient navigation programs, direct access referrals, and systems for communicating with primary care providers for easier referrals and communicating colonoscopy results.”

Many practices are already instituting such improvements in response to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Dr. Itzkowitz.“These changes, plus better coverage by payers, will make a huge impact on health equity when it comes to colorectal cancer screening.”

The publication was supported by the AGA. The investigators disclosed relationships with Geneoscopy, ColoWrap, UniversalDx, and others. Dr. Itzkowitz disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

The American Gastroenterological Association has published eight position statements aimed at reducing the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC).

The evidence-based statements, published in Gastroenterology, call for a national approach to CRC screening, outline the elements of a high-quality screening program, and make clear that payers should cover all costs, from bowel prep through pathology, plus follow-up for high-risk patients.

“There is strong evidence that CRC screening is effective [at reducing CRC incidence and mortality] ... but less than 70% of eligible individuals have been screened,” wrote authors led by David Lieberman, MD, who is on the AGA Executive Committee on the Screening Continuum and affiliated with Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, noting the recent expansion of eligibility to include individuals in the 45- to 49-year age group.

“CRC screening saves lives, but only if people get screened,” Dr. Lieberman said in a press release from the AGA. “Cost sharing is an important barrier to screening, which contributes to racial, ethnic and socioeconomic inequities in colorectal cancer outcomes. The full cost of screening – including noninvasive tests and follow-up colonoscopies – should be covered without cost to patients.”

Eliminating disparities in screening

Among the position statements, Dr. Lieberman and colleagues first called for “development of a national approach to CRC screening” to patch gaps in access across the United States.

“Systematic outreach occurs infrequently,” they noted. “CRC screening prevalence is much lower among individuals who do not have access to health care due to lack of insurance, do not have a primary care provider, or are part of a medically underserved community.”

According to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues, the AGA is also “working with a broad coalition of stakeholders,” such as the American Cancer Society, payers, patient advocacy groups, and others, to create a “national resource ... focused on ensuring high-quality CRC screening and eliminating barriers to CRC screening.”

Specifically, the coalition will work to collectively tackle “disparities created by social determinants of health, which includes lack of access to screening, transportation, and even work hours and child care.

“The AGA recognizes that moving the needle to achieve a CRC screening participation goal of 80% will take a village,” they wrote.

Elements of high-quality CRC screening

The investigators went on to describe the key features of a high-quality CRC screening program, including “colonoscopy and noninvasive screening options, patient education, outreach, and navigation support.”

Dr. Lieberman and colleagues pointed out that offering more than one type of screening test “acknowledges patient preferences and improves participation.”

Certain noninvasive methods, such as fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), eliminate “important barriers” to screening, they noted, such as the need for special preparation, time off work, and transportation to a medical facility.

For individuals who have high-risk adenomas (HRAs) or advanced sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), screening should be expanded to include follow-up, the investigators added.

“Evidence from a systematic review demonstrates that individuals with HRAs at baseline have a 3- to 4-fold higher risk of incident CRC during follow-up compared with individuals with no adenoma or low-risk adenomas,” they wrote. “There is also evidence that individuals with advanced SSLs have a three= to fourfold higher risk of CRC, compared with individuals with nonadvanced SSLs.”
 

Payers should cover costs

To further improve access to care, payers should cover the full costs of CRC screening because “copays and deductibles are barriers to screening and contribute to socioeconomic disparities,” that “disproportionately impact those with low income and lack of insurance,” according to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues.

They noted that the Affordable Care Act “eliminated copayments for preventive services,” yet a recent study showed that almost half of patients with commercial insurance and more than three-quarters of patients with Medicare still share some cost of CRC screening.

The investigators made clear that payers need to cover costs from start to finish, including “bowel preparation, facility and professional fees, anesthesia, and pathology,” as well as follow-up screening for high-risk patients identified by noninvasive methods.

“Noninvasive colorectal screening should be considered as programs with multiple steps, each of which, including follow-up colonoscopy if the test is positive, should be covered by payers without cost sharing as part of the screening continuum,” Dr. Lieberman and colleagues wrote.
 

Changes underway

According to Steven Itzkowitz, MD, professor of medicine and oncological sciences and director of the gastroenterology fellowship training program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the AGA publication is important because it “consolidates many of the critical issues related to decreasing the burden of colorectal cancer in the United States.”

Dr. Itzkowitz noted that changes are already underway to eliminate cost as a barrier to screening.

“The good news is that, in the past year, the Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury declared that cost sharing should not be imposed, and plans are required to cover screening colonoscopy with polyp removal and colonoscopy that is performed to follow-up after an abnormal noninvasive CRC screening test,” Dr. Itzkowitz said in an interview. “Many plans are following suit, but it will take time for this coverage to take effect across all plans.”

For individual gastroenterologists who would like to do their part in reducing screening inequity, Dr. Itzkowitz suggested leveraging noninvasive testing, as the AGA recommends.

“This publication is the latest to call for using noninvasive, stool-based testing in addition to colonoscopy,” Dr. Itzkowitz said. “FIT and multitarget stool DNA tests all have proven efficacy in this regard, so gastroenterologists should have those conversations with their patients. GIs can also make it easier for patients to complete colonoscopy by developing patient navigation programs, direct access referrals, and systems for communicating with primary care providers for easier referrals and communicating colonoscopy results.”

Many practices are already instituting such improvements in response to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Dr. Itzkowitz.“These changes, plus better coverage by payers, will make a huge impact on health equity when it comes to colorectal cancer screening.”

The publication was supported by the AGA. The investigators disclosed relationships with Geneoscopy, ColoWrap, UniversalDx, and others. Dr. Itzkowitz disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

The American Gastroenterological Association has published eight position statements aimed at reducing the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC).

The evidence-based statements, published in Gastroenterology, call for a national approach to CRC screening, outline the elements of a high-quality screening program, and make clear that payers should cover all costs, from bowel prep through pathology, plus follow-up for high-risk patients.

“There is strong evidence that CRC screening is effective [at reducing CRC incidence and mortality] ... but less than 70% of eligible individuals have been screened,” wrote authors led by David Lieberman, MD, who is on the AGA Executive Committee on the Screening Continuum and affiliated with Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, noting the recent expansion of eligibility to include individuals in the 45- to 49-year age group.

“CRC screening saves lives, but only if people get screened,” Dr. Lieberman said in a press release from the AGA. “Cost sharing is an important barrier to screening, which contributes to racial, ethnic and socioeconomic inequities in colorectal cancer outcomes. The full cost of screening – including noninvasive tests and follow-up colonoscopies – should be covered without cost to patients.”

Eliminating disparities in screening

Among the position statements, Dr. Lieberman and colleagues first called for “development of a national approach to CRC screening” to patch gaps in access across the United States.

“Systematic outreach occurs infrequently,” they noted. “CRC screening prevalence is much lower among individuals who do not have access to health care due to lack of insurance, do not have a primary care provider, or are part of a medically underserved community.”

According to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues, the AGA is also “working with a broad coalition of stakeholders,” such as the American Cancer Society, payers, patient advocacy groups, and others, to create a “national resource ... focused on ensuring high-quality CRC screening and eliminating barriers to CRC screening.”

Specifically, the coalition will work to collectively tackle “disparities created by social determinants of health, which includes lack of access to screening, transportation, and even work hours and child care.

“The AGA recognizes that moving the needle to achieve a CRC screening participation goal of 80% will take a village,” they wrote.

Elements of high-quality CRC screening

The investigators went on to describe the key features of a high-quality CRC screening program, including “colonoscopy and noninvasive screening options, patient education, outreach, and navigation support.”

Dr. Lieberman and colleagues pointed out that offering more than one type of screening test “acknowledges patient preferences and improves participation.”

Certain noninvasive methods, such as fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), eliminate “important barriers” to screening, they noted, such as the need for special preparation, time off work, and transportation to a medical facility.

For individuals who have high-risk adenomas (HRAs) or advanced sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), screening should be expanded to include follow-up, the investigators added.

“Evidence from a systematic review demonstrates that individuals with HRAs at baseline have a 3- to 4-fold higher risk of incident CRC during follow-up compared with individuals with no adenoma or low-risk adenomas,” they wrote. “There is also evidence that individuals with advanced SSLs have a three= to fourfold higher risk of CRC, compared with individuals with nonadvanced SSLs.”
 

Payers should cover costs

To further improve access to care, payers should cover the full costs of CRC screening because “copays and deductibles are barriers to screening and contribute to socioeconomic disparities,” that “disproportionately impact those with low income and lack of insurance,” according to Dr. Lieberman and colleagues.

They noted that the Affordable Care Act “eliminated copayments for preventive services,” yet a recent study showed that almost half of patients with commercial insurance and more than three-quarters of patients with Medicare still share some cost of CRC screening.

The investigators made clear that payers need to cover costs from start to finish, including “bowel preparation, facility and professional fees, anesthesia, and pathology,” as well as follow-up screening for high-risk patients identified by noninvasive methods.

“Noninvasive colorectal screening should be considered as programs with multiple steps, each of which, including follow-up colonoscopy if the test is positive, should be covered by payers without cost sharing as part of the screening continuum,” Dr. Lieberman and colleagues wrote.
 

Changes underway

According to Steven Itzkowitz, MD, professor of medicine and oncological sciences and director of the gastroenterology fellowship training program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the AGA publication is important because it “consolidates many of the critical issues related to decreasing the burden of colorectal cancer in the United States.”

Dr. Itzkowitz noted that changes are already underway to eliminate cost as a barrier to screening.

“The good news is that, in the past year, the Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury declared that cost sharing should not be imposed, and plans are required to cover screening colonoscopy with polyp removal and colonoscopy that is performed to follow-up after an abnormal noninvasive CRC screening test,” Dr. Itzkowitz said in an interview. “Many plans are following suit, but it will take time for this coverage to take effect across all plans.”

For individual gastroenterologists who would like to do their part in reducing screening inequity, Dr. Itzkowitz suggested leveraging noninvasive testing, as the AGA recommends.

“This publication is the latest to call for using noninvasive, stool-based testing in addition to colonoscopy,” Dr. Itzkowitz said. “FIT and multitarget stool DNA tests all have proven efficacy in this regard, so gastroenterologists should have those conversations with their patients. GIs can also make it easier for patients to complete colonoscopy by developing patient navigation programs, direct access referrals, and systems for communicating with primary care providers for easier referrals and communicating colonoscopy results.”

Many practices are already instituting such improvements in response to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Dr. Itzkowitz.“These changes, plus better coverage by payers, will make a huge impact on health equity when it comes to colorectal cancer screening.”

The publication was supported by the AGA. The investigators disclosed relationships with Geneoscopy, ColoWrap, UniversalDx, and others. Dr. Itzkowitz disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Cannabis-based products may control chronic pain as effectively as opioids, but adverse effects are common, and long-term safety remains unknown, according to a new study.

Several other systematic reviews have recently evaluated cannabinoids for treating chronic pain, but the new study’s methodology was “distinct” in “important ways,” leading to “conclusions that differ from other reviews,” according to the authors of the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the new systematic review, synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios were associated with moderate improvements in pain, whereas plant-based products with comparable THC:CBD ratios offered less relief, said study author Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology, and codirector of the Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Specifically, the investigators stratified cannabis-based interventions according to relative content of two key cannabinoids: THC and CBD. Products were sorted into five categories: high THC:CBD ratio (at least 2:1), comparable THC:CBD ratio (less than 2:1 but more than 1:2), low THC:CBD ratio (no more than 1:2), whole-plant cannabis products, and other cannabinoids.

“In preclinical studies, THC and related compounds have demonstrated analgesic properties, although its psychoactive effects and addiction potential may limit its suitability as an analgesic,” the investigators wrote. “CBD and other cannabinoids may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not believed to be psychoactive or addictive. Given the variation in analgesic effect with THC and CBD, response may differ according to the ratio of THC to CBD in products used to treat pain.”

The final analysis included 18 randomized placebo-controlled trials involving 1,740 individuals and 7 cohort studies involving 13,095 individuals. Most of the studies were short-term, lasting 1-6 months.

Pain was scored on a ten-point scale, with improvements reported as the mean difference from baseline to post treatment. A mean difference in pain score of 0.5-1.0 was considered a “small effect,” an improvement of 1-2 points was considered a “moderate effect,” and an improvement greater than 2 points was considered a “large effect.”
 

Cannabis-based products with relatively high THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy

Synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios offered moderate pain relief, based on a mean difference in pain score of –1.15 (95% confidence interval, –1.99 to –0.54), whereas products with comparable THC:CBD ratios were associated with a small effect on pain, with a mean difference of –0.52 (95% CI, –0.95 to –0.19).

According to Dr. McDonagh, treatment response rates were on par with response rates for more conventional treatments, “such as opioids or specific antidepressant drugs,” but data for the cannabis-based products are weaker.

“The amount of evidence available for cannabis-related products is very limited for [response rates], and therefore less certain,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “The average reduction in pain severity is also similar to some other treatments, but we do not have studies directly comparing these treatments to draw conclusions.”

Although the cannabis-based products with relatively high and comparable THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy, they were also associated with “moderate to large increased risk for dizziness, sedation, and nausea,” the investigators wrote, noting that evidence was insufficient to characterize other “key adverse event outcomes” that may occur with long-term use, such as “psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive deficits.”

For products with low THC:CBD ratios, or without reported THC:CBD ratios, data were too scarce to reach any conclusions at all about safety or efficacy, highlighting the sizable knowledge gaps that remain in the area, the authors said.

“The current evidence on cannabis-related products for chronic pain is quite limited,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “Patients with chronic pain should consult with their doctor to discuss which of the many options for treating chronic pain is best for them to start with.”
 

Patients may face resistance when asking about cannabis

According to Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, and Daniel J. Clauw, MD, of the anesthesiology department and Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, patients with chronic pain may face resistance, or even risk of being reported, when asking about cannabis-based products.

“Some physicians cite lack of data as rationale for not engaging with patients who wish to use or currently use cannabis,” Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Such practices may reflect consideration of cannabis solely as a drug of misuse (even in the 37 states where medical cannabis is legal) and requirements to refer patients who disclose or test positive for cannabis use to addiction services or decline to refill opioid prescriptions.”

Instead of shutting patients out, Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw suggested clinicians engage in an “open information exchange” with their patients that focuses on “pragmatism, patient experience, known cannabinoid effects, and harm reduction.” In these conversations, the editorialists recommend noting that, “as with other analgesics, some persons will benefit, and others will not.”

They also offered some practical guidance: “Clinicians could suggest using tinctures (effect onset, 15-45 minutes) for breakthrough pain and edibles or capsules (which last about 6-8 hours) for extended relief. ... The scientific literature suggests that CBD doses could start at 5-10 mg twice daily and increase to 40-50 mg daily, whereas THC doses could start at 0.5-3 mg (initially at night) and increase to 30-40 mg/day.”

David Copenhaver, MD, MPH, clinical professor and chief of the division of pain medicine at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, shared a similar clinical mindset for patients choosing between opioids and cannabis-based products, specifically, CBD.

Compared with opioids, “the side-effect profile for CBD is less and the risk of mortality is less,” Dr. Copenhaver said in an interview, pointing out that nobody, to his knowledge, has ever died from an overdose of cannabis alone, and that CBD doses up to 1,000 mg/kg have been safely tolerated in people. “You present that, and most patients will say, ‘You know, I’d like to give this a try.’”

If so, Dr. Copenhaver makes sure patients know about a nonmedical risk: “The risk to the pocketbook.” Unlike opioids, which are covered under most insurance policies, most cannabis-based therapies are self-pay.

Buyers may get what they pay for, Dr. Copenhaver said, since products vary in quality, as do the dispensaries, from “very modest,” to highly sophisticated, with some even using chromatographic datasets to support the purity of their products.

Dr. Copenhaver steers his patients toward these more sophisticated retailers. Their expertise appears to be paying off, he said, not only in relief for patients, but also in market share. “Survival of the most fit will occur in the marketplace based on the results,” he said. “Unfortunately, some of that information doesn’t get percolated out into the literature.”

For investigators to fully uncover what cannabis-based products can do for chronic pain, Dr. Copenhaver said they need to get as “granular” as the leading dispensaries, which may first require recognition of the “very expansive opportunity” that less-studied cannabinoids may provide.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators, Dr. Boehnke, Dr. Clauw, and Dr. Copenhaver, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Cannabis-based products may control chronic pain as effectively as opioids, but adverse effects are common, and long-term safety remains unknown, according to a new study.

Several other systematic reviews have recently evaluated cannabinoids for treating chronic pain, but the new study’s methodology was “distinct” in “important ways,” leading to “conclusions that differ from other reviews,” according to the authors of the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the new systematic review, synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios were associated with moderate improvements in pain, whereas plant-based products with comparable THC:CBD ratios offered less relief, said study author Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology, and codirector of the Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Specifically, the investigators stratified cannabis-based interventions according to relative content of two key cannabinoids: THC and CBD. Products were sorted into five categories: high THC:CBD ratio (at least 2:1), comparable THC:CBD ratio (less than 2:1 but more than 1:2), low THC:CBD ratio (no more than 1:2), whole-plant cannabis products, and other cannabinoids.

“In preclinical studies, THC and related compounds have demonstrated analgesic properties, although its psychoactive effects and addiction potential may limit its suitability as an analgesic,” the investigators wrote. “CBD and other cannabinoids may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not believed to be psychoactive or addictive. Given the variation in analgesic effect with THC and CBD, response may differ according to the ratio of THC to CBD in products used to treat pain.”

The final analysis included 18 randomized placebo-controlled trials involving 1,740 individuals and 7 cohort studies involving 13,095 individuals. Most of the studies were short-term, lasting 1-6 months.

Pain was scored on a ten-point scale, with improvements reported as the mean difference from baseline to post treatment. A mean difference in pain score of 0.5-1.0 was considered a “small effect,” an improvement of 1-2 points was considered a “moderate effect,” and an improvement greater than 2 points was considered a “large effect.”
 

Cannabis-based products with relatively high THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy

Synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios offered moderate pain relief, based on a mean difference in pain score of –1.15 (95% confidence interval, –1.99 to –0.54), whereas products with comparable THC:CBD ratios were associated with a small effect on pain, with a mean difference of –0.52 (95% CI, –0.95 to –0.19).

According to Dr. McDonagh, treatment response rates were on par with response rates for more conventional treatments, “such as opioids or specific antidepressant drugs,” but data for the cannabis-based products are weaker.

“The amount of evidence available for cannabis-related products is very limited for [response rates], and therefore less certain,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “The average reduction in pain severity is also similar to some other treatments, but we do not have studies directly comparing these treatments to draw conclusions.”

Although the cannabis-based products with relatively high and comparable THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy, they were also associated with “moderate to large increased risk for dizziness, sedation, and nausea,” the investigators wrote, noting that evidence was insufficient to characterize other “key adverse event outcomes” that may occur with long-term use, such as “psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive deficits.”

For products with low THC:CBD ratios, or without reported THC:CBD ratios, data were too scarce to reach any conclusions at all about safety or efficacy, highlighting the sizable knowledge gaps that remain in the area, the authors said.

“The current evidence on cannabis-related products for chronic pain is quite limited,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “Patients with chronic pain should consult with their doctor to discuss which of the many options for treating chronic pain is best for them to start with.”
 

Patients may face resistance when asking about cannabis

According to Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, and Daniel J. Clauw, MD, of the anesthesiology department and Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, patients with chronic pain may face resistance, or even risk of being reported, when asking about cannabis-based products.

“Some physicians cite lack of data as rationale for not engaging with patients who wish to use or currently use cannabis,” Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Such practices may reflect consideration of cannabis solely as a drug of misuse (even in the 37 states where medical cannabis is legal) and requirements to refer patients who disclose or test positive for cannabis use to addiction services or decline to refill opioid prescriptions.”

Instead of shutting patients out, Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw suggested clinicians engage in an “open information exchange” with their patients that focuses on “pragmatism, patient experience, known cannabinoid effects, and harm reduction.” In these conversations, the editorialists recommend noting that, “as with other analgesics, some persons will benefit, and others will not.”

They also offered some practical guidance: “Clinicians could suggest using tinctures (effect onset, 15-45 minutes) for breakthrough pain and edibles or capsules (which last about 6-8 hours) for extended relief. ... The scientific literature suggests that CBD doses could start at 5-10 mg twice daily and increase to 40-50 mg daily, whereas THC doses could start at 0.5-3 mg (initially at night) and increase to 30-40 mg/day.”

David Copenhaver, MD, MPH, clinical professor and chief of the division of pain medicine at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, shared a similar clinical mindset for patients choosing between opioids and cannabis-based products, specifically, CBD.

Compared with opioids, “the side-effect profile for CBD is less and the risk of mortality is less,” Dr. Copenhaver said in an interview, pointing out that nobody, to his knowledge, has ever died from an overdose of cannabis alone, and that CBD doses up to 1,000 mg/kg have been safely tolerated in people. “You present that, and most patients will say, ‘You know, I’d like to give this a try.’”

If so, Dr. Copenhaver makes sure patients know about a nonmedical risk: “The risk to the pocketbook.” Unlike opioids, which are covered under most insurance policies, most cannabis-based therapies are self-pay.

Buyers may get what they pay for, Dr. Copenhaver said, since products vary in quality, as do the dispensaries, from “very modest,” to highly sophisticated, with some even using chromatographic datasets to support the purity of their products.

Dr. Copenhaver steers his patients toward these more sophisticated retailers. Their expertise appears to be paying off, he said, not only in relief for patients, but also in market share. “Survival of the most fit will occur in the marketplace based on the results,” he said. “Unfortunately, some of that information doesn’t get percolated out into the literature.”

For investigators to fully uncover what cannabis-based products can do for chronic pain, Dr. Copenhaver said they need to get as “granular” as the leading dispensaries, which may first require recognition of the “very expansive opportunity” that less-studied cannabinoids may provide.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators, Dr. Boehnke, Dr. Clauw, and Dr. Copenhaver, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Cannabis-based products may control chronic pain as effectively as opioids, but adverse effects are common, and long-term safety remains unknown, according to a new study.

Several other systematic reviews have recently evaluated cannabinoids for treating chronic pain, but the new study’s methodology was “distinct” in “important ways,” leading to “conclusions that differ from other reviews,” according to the authors of the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the new systematic review, synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios were associated with moderate improvements in pain, whereas plant-based products with comparable THC:CBD ratios offered less relief, said study author Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology, and codirector of the Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Specifically, the investigators stratified cannabis-based interventions according to relative content of two key cannabinoids: THC and CBD. Products were sorted into five categories: high THC:CBD ratio (at least 2:1), comparable THC:CBD ratio (less than 2:1 but more than 1:2), low THC:CBD ratio (no more than 1:2), whole-plant cannabis products, and other cannabinoids.

“In preclinical studies, THC and related compounds have demonstrated analgesic properties, although its psychoactive effects and addiction potential may limit its suitability as an analgesic,” the investigators wrote. “CBD and other cannabinoids may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not believed to be psychoactive or addictive. Given the variation in analgesic effect with THC and CBD, response may differ according to the ratio of THC to CBD in products used to treat pain.”

The final analysis included 18 randomized placebo-controlled trials involving 1,740 individuals and 7 cohort studies involving 13,095 individuals. Most of the studies were short-term, lasting 1-6 months.

Pain was scored on a ten-point scale, with improvements reported as the mean difference from baseline to post treatment. A mean difference in pain score of 0.5-1.0 was considered a “small effect,” an improvement of 1-2 points was considered a “moderate effect,” and an improvement greater than 2 points was considered a “large effect.”
 

Cannabis-based products with relatively high THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy

Synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios offered moderate pain relief, based on a mean difference in pain score of –1.15 (95% confidence interval, –1.99 to –0.54), whereas products with comparable THC:CBD ratios were associated with a small effect on pain, with a mean difference of –0.52 (95% CI, –0.95 to –0.19).

According to Dr. McDonagh, treatment response rates were on par with response rates for more conventional treatments, “such as opioids or specific antidepressant drugs,” but data for the cannabis-based products are weaker.

“The amount of evidence available for cannabis-related products is very limited for [response rates], and therefore less certain,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “The average reduction in pain severity is also similar to some other treatments, but we do not have studies directly comparing these treatments to draw conclusions.”

Although the cannabis-based products with relatively high and comparable THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy, they were also associated with “moderate to large increased risk for dizziness, sedation, and nausea,” the investigators wrote, noting that evidence was insufficient to characterize other “key adverse event outcomes” that may occur with long-term use, such as “psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive deficits.”

For products with low THC:CBD ratios, or without reported THC:CBD ratios, data were too scarce to reach any conclusions at all about safety or efficacy, highlighting the sizable knowledge gaps that remain in the area, the authors said.

“The current evidence on cannabis-related products for chronic pain is quite limited,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “Patients with chronic pain should consult with their doctor to discuss which of the many options for treating chronic pain is best for them to start with.”
 

Patients may face resistance when asking about cannabis

According to Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, and Daniel J. Clauw, MD, of the anesthesiology department and Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, patients with chronic pain may face resistance, or even risk of being reported, when asking about cannabis-based products.

“Some physicians cite lack of data as rationale for not engaging with patients who wish to use or currently use cannabis,” Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Such practices may reflect consideration of cannabis solely as a drug of misuse (even in the 37 states where medical cannabis is legal) and requirements to refer patients who disclose or test positive for cannabis use to addiction services or decline to refill opioid prescriptions.”

Instead of shutting patients out, Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw suggested clinicians engage in an “open information exchange” with their patients that focuses on “pragmatism, patient experience, known cannabinoid effects, and harm reduction.” In these conversations, the editorialists recommend noting that, “as with other analgesics, some persons will benefit, and others will not.”

They also offered some practical guidance: “Clinicians could suggest using tinctures (effect onset, 15-45 minutes) for breakthrough pain and edibles or capsules (which last about 6-8 hours) for extended relief. ... The scientific literature suggests that CBD doses could start at 5-10 mg twice daily and increase to 40-50 mg daily, whereas THC doses could start at 0.5-3 mg (initially at night) and increase to 30-40 mg/day.”

David Copenhaver, MD, MPH, clinical professor and chief of the division of pain medicine at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, shared a similar clinical mindset for patients choosing between opioids and cannabis-based products, specifically, CBD.

Compared with opioids, “the side-effect profile for CBD is less and the risk of mortality is less,” Dr. Copenhaver said in an interview, pointing out that nobody, to his knowledge, has ever died from an overdose of cannabis alone, and that CBD doses up to 1,000 mg/kg have been safely tolerated in people. “You present that, and most patients will say, ‘You know, I’d like to give this a try.’”

If so, Dr. Copenhaver makes sure patients know about a nonmedical risk: “The risk to the pocketbook.” Unlike opioids, which are covered under most insurance policies, most cannabis-based therapies are self-pay.

Buyers may get what they pay for, Dr. Copenhaver said, since products vary in quality, as do the dispensaries, from “very modest,” to highly sophisticated, with some even using chromatographic datasets to support the purity of their products.

Dr. Copenhaver steers his patients toward these more sophisticated retailers. Their expertise appears to be paying off, he said, not only in relief for patients, but also in market share. “Survival of the most fit will occur in the marketplace based on the results,” he said. “Unfortunately, some of that information doesn’t get percolated out into the literature.”

For investigators to fully uncover what cannabis-based products can do for chronic pain, Dr. Copenhaver said they need to get as “granular” as the leading dispensaries, which may first require recognition of the “very expansive opportunity” that less-studied cannabinoids may provide.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators, Dr. Boehnke, Dr. Clauw, and Dr. Copenhaver, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A novel blood-based assay could one day be used to diagnose Parkinson’s disease and possibly other chronic inflammatory conditions, according to investigators. In addition to being highly accurate, the assay, which detects changes in expression of cytochrome P450s, is faster and easier to perform than other Parkinson’s disease assays under investigation, reported lead author Kohei Ihara, PhD, of Kobe University, Japan, and colleagues.

“Effective diagnostic systems and biomarkers for patients without subjective motor symptoms have not yet been established,” the investigators wrote in Nature Scientific Reports. “Consequently, the poor diagnostic options for Parkinson’s disease delay the development of therapeutic approaches and medication. Therefore, the development of efficient diagnostic systems and biomarkers is crucial for overcoming Parkinson’s disease.”

According to Dr. Ihara and colleagues, various cytochrome P450 expression patterns and associated serum metabolites correlate with chronic conditions, making them possible markers of disease. To detect these changes, they developed the present assay. It relies upon recombinant P450s expressed on the surface of Escherichia coli. By mixing the E. coli with serum and Vivid, a fluorescent substrate, the investigators can measure “the inhibition rate of the Vivid decomposition reaction” that was driven by “serum metabolites associated with P450s,” revealing underlying expression and, if present, disease.

After some promising initial experiments with mouse models of ulcerative colitis and diabetes, Dr. Ihara and colleagues focused on a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Evaluating inhibition rates associated with four P450s revealed area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of 0.814-0.914. Two of those P450s were also associated with progression of disease symptoms.

“Therefore, we concluded that the P450 inhibition assay could discriminate between Parkinson’s disease model rats and control rats,” the investigators wrote.

Next, the investigators tested the approach with a case-control study involving 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 20 healthy volunteers. Twelve P450s were analyzed, three of which revealed significant differences between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls, with AUCs ranging from 0.740-0.775. Each of the three P450 enzymes also correlated significantly with stage of disease on the Hoehn & Yahr scale, although severity and frequency of symptoms were not reported.

To increase accuracy of the technique, the investigators developed a logistic regression model using two of the three P450s, generating an AUC of 0.910. Further testing showed that the P450 inhibition assay could distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, as well as other chronic inflammatory diseases.

“The P450 inhibition assay is easier to perform and is faster than other assays because this assay does not require pretreatment, such as purification of exosomes, and it involves a single enzymatic reaction,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that the assay may be suitable for real-world diagnosis.
 

‘Promising’ findings need replication

According to Douglas Galasko, MD, a neurologist and professor of neurosciences at UC San Diego Health, the reported accuracy of the assay “seems spectacular,” and the findings are “promising,” but they need to be replicated, “particularly in early-stage patients where the diagnosis [of Parkinson’s disease] is more difficult and important to make.” In practice, the assay would likely see greatest usage for “early diagnosis or diagnosis of unusual or challenging cases,” so accuracy testing needs to be conducted in this setting, he said.

Dr. Galasko, who was not involved in the study, predicted that liquid biopsy for detecting Parkinson’s disease is unlikely to hit the clinic floor anytime soon. “We’re not really close with blood-based biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease,” he said, “unlike the situation for Alzheimer’s disease, where there are several promising blood-based biomarkers.”

For diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Galasko suggested that assays using skin biopsies to measure alpha-synuclein accumulation may be closer to approval.

The study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K20223 and the Sumitomo Electric Industries Group Corporate Social Responsibility Foundation. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A novel blood-based assay could one day be used to diagnose Parkinson’s disease and possibly other chronic inflammatory conditions, according to investigators. In addition to being highly accurate, the assay, which detects changes in expression of cytochrome P450s, is faster and easier to perform than other Parkinson’s disease assays under investigation, reported lead author Kohei Ihara, PhD, of Kobe University, Japan, and colleagues.

“Effective diagnostic systems and biomarkers for patients without subjective motor symptoms have not yet been established,” the investigators wrote in Nature Scientific Reports. “Consequently, the poor diagnostic options for Parkinson’s disease delay the development of therapeutic approaches and medication. Therefore, the development of efficient diagnostic systems and biomarkers is crucial for overcoming Parkinson’s disease.”

According to Dr. Ihara and colleagues, various cytochrome P450 expression patterns and associated serum metabolites correlate with chronic conditions, making them possible markers of disease. To detect these changes, they developed the present assay. It relies upon recombinant P450s expressed on the surface of Escherichia coli. By mixing the E. coli with serum and Vivid, a fluorescent substrate, the investigators can measure “the inhibition rate of the Vivid decomposition reaction” that was driven by “serum metabolites associated with P450s,” revealing underlying expression and, if present, disease.

After some promising initial experiments with mouse models of ulcerative colitis and diabetes, Dr. Ihara and colleagues focused on a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Evaluating inhibition rates associated with four P450s revealed area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of 0.814-0.914. Two of those P450s were also associated with progression of disease symptoms.

“Therefore, we concluded that the P450 inhibition assay could discriminate between Parkinson’s disease model rats and control rats,” the investigators wrote.

Next, the investigators tested the approach with a case-control study involving 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 20 healthy volunteers. Twelve P450s were analyzed, three of which revealed significant differences between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls, with AUCs ranging from 0.740-0.775. Each of the three P450 enzymes also correlated significantly with stage of disease on the Hoehn & Yahr scale, although severity and frequency of symptoms were not reported.

To increase accuracy of the technique, the investigators developed a logistic regression model using two of the three P450s, generating an AUC of 0.910. Further testing showed that the P450 inhibition assay could distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, as well as other chronic inflammatory diseases.

“The P450 inhibition assay is easier to perform and is faster than other assays because this assay does not require pretreatment, such as purification of exosomes, and it involves a single enzymatic reaction,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that the assay may be suitable for real-world diagnosis.
 

‘Promising’ findings need replication

According to Douglas Galasko, MD, a neurologist and professor of neurosciences at UC San Diego Health, the reported accuracy of the assay “seems spectacular,” and the findings are “promising,” but they need to be replicated, “particularly in early-stage patients where the diagnosis [of Parkinson’s disease] is more difficult and important to make.” In practice, the assay would likely see greatest usage for “early diagnosis or diagnosis of unusual or challenging cases,” so accuracy testing needs to be conducted in this setting, he said.

Dr. Galasko, who was not involved in the study, predicted that liquid biopsy for detecting Parkinson’s disease is unlikely to hit the clinic floor anytime soon. “We’re not really close with blood-based biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease,” he said, “unlike the situation for Alzheimer’s disease, where there are several promising blood-based biomarkers.”

For diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Galasko suggested that assays using skin biopsies to measure alpha-synuclein accumulation may be closer to approval.

The study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K20223 and the Sumitomo Electric Industries Group Corporate Social Responsibility Foundation. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A novel blood-based assay could one day be used to diagnose Parkinson’s disease and possibly other chronic inflammatory conditions, according to investigators. In addition to being highly accurate, the assay, which detects changes in expression of cytochrome P450s, is faster and easier to perform than other Parkinson’s disease assays under investigation, reported lead author Kohei Ihara, PhD, of Kobe University, Japan, and colleagues.

“Effective diagnostic systems and biomarkers for patients without subjective motor symptoms have not yet been established,” the investigators wrote in Nature Scientific Reports. “Consequently, the poor diagnostic options for Parkinson’s disease delay the development of therapeutic approaches and medication. Therefore, the development of efficient diagnostic systems and biomarkers is crucial for overcoming Parkinson’s disease.”

According to Dr. Ihara and colleagues, various cytochrome P450 expression patterns and associated serum metabolites correlate with chronic conditions, making them possible markers of disease. To detect these changes, they developed the present assay. It relies upon recombinant P450s expressed on the surface of Escherichia coli. By mixing the E. coli with serum and Vivid, a fluorescent substrate, the investigators can measure “the inhibition rate of the Vivid decomposition reaction” that was driven by “serum metabolites associated with P450s,” revealing underlying expression and, if present, disease.

After some promising initial experiments with mouse models of ulcerative colitis and diabetes, Dr. Ihara and colleagues focused on a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Evaluating inhibition rates associated with four P450s revealed area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of 0.814-0.914. Two of those P450s were also associated with progression of disease symptoms.

“Therefore, we concluded that the P450 inhibition assay could discriminate between Parkinson’s disease model rats and control rats,” the investigators wrote.

Next, the investigators tested the approach with a case-control study involving 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 20 healthy volunteers. Twelve P450s were analyzed, three of which revealed significant differences between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls, with AUCs ranging from 0.740-0.775. Each of the three P450 enzymes also correlated significantly with stage of disease on the Hoehn & Yahr scale, although severity and frequency of symptoms were not reported.

To increase accuracy of the technique, the investigators developed a logistic regression model using two of the three P450s, generating an AUC of 0.910. Further testing showed that the P450 inhibition assay could distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, as well as other chronic inflammatory diseases.

“The P450 inhibition assay is easier to perform and is faster than other assays because this assay does not require pretreatment, such as purification of exosomes, and it involves a single enzymatic reaction,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that the assay may be suitable for real-world diagnosis.
 

‘Promising’ findings need replication

According to Douglas Galasko, MD, a neurologist and professor of neurosciences at UC San Diego Health, the reported accuracy of the assay “seems spectacular,” and the findings are “promising,” but they need to be replicated, “particularly in early-stage patients where the diagnosis [of Parkinson’s disease] is more difficult and important to make.” In practice, the assay would likely see greatest usage for “early diagnosis or diagnosis of unusual or challenging cases,” so accuracy testing needs to be conducted in this setting, he said.

Dr. Galasko, who was not involved in the study, predicted that liquid biopsy for detecting Parkinson’s disease is unlikely to hit the clinic floor anytime soon. “We’re not really close with blood-based biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease,” he said, “unlike the situation for Alzheimer’s disease, where there are several promising blood-based biomarkers.”

For diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Galasko suggested that assays using skin biopsies to measure alpha-synuclein accumulation may be closer to approval.

The study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K20223 and the Sumitomo Electric Industries Group Corporate Social Responsibility Foundation. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Headache medicine expert Joel Saper, MD once saw the formation of the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties as a sign of progress in the field. In 2005, he even helped write their first certification exam for headache medicine.

Now he’s calling fraud.

After Dr. Saper’s initial 10-year certification expired, he paid $1,800 to take a recertification test. Passing this, he earned another decade of diplomate status; or so he thought, until a couple years later, when he received word from the UCNS.

“They were changing the rules,” Dr. Saper said in an interview. “The 10-year certificate was no longer valid. You had to go through another process.”

That process, known as continuous certification, has become the new standard among medical boards. In contrast with a more conventional recertification process that depends upon high-fee, high-stakes exams taken years apart, continuous certification typically involves a relatively small annual fee coupled with online reading and assessments designed to ensure familiarity with advances in the field.

It’s not just the physicians that need to study up. Medical boards are under pressure to ensure that they are maintaining retention, a potentially challenging task with approximately 200 medical certifying boards in the United States competing for attention, and in some cases, credibility.

Pivots to new systems of recertification have been a particular flash point among physicians. In 2015, a Newsweek article described how a group of “nationally known physicians revolted against the American Board of Internal Medicine” after the board “attempted to expand its program for recertifying doctors, adding boatloads of requirements and fees to be paid by physicians.”

In response, ABIM attacked both the journalist and Newsweek, citing a conflict of interest (the journalist was married to a doctor). The journalist went on to uncover some uncomfortable statistics, including the fact that, over a 5-year period, the ABIM Foundation lost $39.8 million while paying senior administrators $125.7 million. Such revelations have likely added to a collective skepticism about medical boards and their motives.
 

The changing landscape of recertification

According to Brenda Riggott, executive director of the UCNS, the switch to continuous certification was driven by a need to keep up with new standards.

“We really found the landscape of maintaining medical certifications in general was changing,” Ms. Riggott said, highlighting how the UCNS “evaluated 13 different continuous certification models being administered by medical boards” before settling upon the present model.

Continuous certification with the UCNS now requires a $175 annual fee. Each year, diplomates read 10 journal articles, then take a 25-question online quiz to demonstrate their understanding.

“It’s really about patient care,” Ms. Riggott said in an interview. “Medicine changes rapidly. And there are a lot of advances. Evaluating that once a decade is really not enough to verify that somebody is maintaining their skills, their knowledge.”

Dr. Saper, a clinical professor of neurology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, and founder-director of the Michigan Head Pain and Neurological Institute, Ann Arbor, had no inherent qualm with transitioning to this newer process, but he did take umbrage at its execution, since his UCNS certificate still had about 7 years until expiry.

He said the UCNS should have honored existing certificates through their stated duration, citing precedent set by the American Academy of Neurology. When the AAN transitioned from lifetime board certification to a periodic recertification process, they honored the lifetime status of those who already held it, according to Dr. Saper.

“[The AAN] looked at those of us who had been boarded under the premise that we were going to be lifetime boarded ... and they said: ‘We’re going to grandfather you ... because that was the rule under which you took your initial exams.’ ... That’s what UCNS should have done,” Dr. Saper said.
 

A compromise

Under pressure from Dr. Saper and others, UCNS compromised by endorsing 10-year diplomates until the 5-year mark.

Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, was among those who spoke up, only to see the duration of his certification cut in half.

“UCNS obviously realized that they had been wrong,” Dr. Rapoport said, referring to the compromise they made.

At the 5-year mark, physicians who didn’t adopt the new system were deleted from the UCNS online database, eliminating “the only way the public would know whether or not we were certified. This was after UCNS told us we would stay on the list with a note next to our name suggesting our certification was incomplete. They did not care that this might have hurt our reputations,” Dr. Rapoport said.

“To this day, no refunds, partial or full, have been given for the $1,800 we paid for the privilege of sitting for the exam, or for our time studying, or for the expenses accrued from canceling a day in the office and traveling to a testing center,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I did not want the money back; I wanted the certification promised to me. Since they have removed my name from this list, they do owe me the $1,800. They say they do not return their fees if you fail. How about if you pass and they remove you from their list?”

Yet he went on to make clear that the real issue is the principle of the matter. “This is not about money,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is about what is fair and right.”

“The UCNS issued me a certificate for 10 years of certification in headache medicine; it is unethical and unlawful to break that contract and grant me only 5 years. Worse, they removed my name as though I do not exist. Along with Dr. Saper, I was one of the doctors that spent time and effort to advance headache medicine from October 1979, when I became a headache specialist, to today. I supported the principles of UCNS and took the first exam. I became the President of the International Headache Society and traveled the world promoting headache medicine; and this is how I am treated. Who can respect this type of certification, or this organization?”

Dr. Saper agreed: “It’s not about the money. It’s about the commitment. It’s very fraudulent.”

After the UCNS decision, Dr. Rapoport and Dr. Saper sought legal counsel, but ultimately decided not to sue the UCNS because of the lengthy process it would entail and the cost, estimated to be over $100,000.

“Our lawyers said: ‘It’s going to be years to get through it. You’ll probably win in the end, because it was fraudulent behavior,’ ” Dr. Saper said.
 

A different viewpoint

Ms. Riggott offered a different viewpoint: Nobody was guaranteed 10 years of certification.

“People do not pay for certification [from the UCNS],” Ms. Riggott said. “They pay to sit for an exam. It’s an exam administration fee. That can be construed as: ‘They paid for 10 years.’ They did not. They paid to sit for an exam. There are people who pay for an exam, and they don’t pass it, and they’re not certified. They don’t get a refund. That’s just the way high-stakes certification exams go.”

Dr. Saper and Dr. Rapoport see it differently. “The inherent reason any of us sit for an exam is to get certified.” Dr. Rapoport added. “Ms. Riggott is not being honest. There was an implied contract that if we passed, we would be granted a 10-year certification because that was what we did previously and that is what they told us would happen. Why would they have sent me this nice certificate for 10 more years of certification if she were telling the truth?”

Courtesy Dr. Alan M. Rapoport

Profits over promises

Dr. Rapoport estimates that many other neurologists had their certificates cut short and were dropped from this official list, some of them eminent members of the field, including David Watson, MD, professor and chair of neurology at West Virginia University Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, Morgantown, and Robert Cowan, MD, professor of neurology and chief of the division of headache medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“It is troubling when the organizations charged with maintaining the integrity of our specialization do not act with integrity,” Dr. Watson said. “The UCNS chose profits over promises and has refused to meaningfully engage with those of us whom they have wronged. What was once a point of pride for me (being in the second class of certified headache medicine diplomates) has become a meaningless piece of paper. This makes me sad.”

Dr. Cowan said the UCNS actions angered him while affirming his lifelong skepticism of clubs. “I was very sorry, but not surprised, to see the UCNS change the rules when the opportunity to make more money presented itself, and not surprised they did not honor their contracts. UCNS is just another scam like Best Doctors in the US and similar hypes. Neither are worth another dime of my money nor the time spent discussing them. One thing more: I have no quarrel with efforts to encourage keeping up with the field, although no one I know needs codification or direction as to which articles should be read. My outrage comes when responsible behavior is used as an excuse to line the pockets of dishonest, immoral individuals. I’m done.”

According to Ms. Riggott, the UCNS continuous certification process continues to evolve based on feedback from diplomates. She noted that “change is hard,” although the challenges of the transition appear to be paying off. “Initial retention for continuing certification is much higher than we would have expected from a high-stakes recertification exam,” she said. “So we are very, very happy about that.”
 

Proprietary tests drive revenue

According to Katie Collins, executive director of the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons, proprietary tests are a key revenue driver for medical boards, casting doubt on their educational motives.

“This isn’t really about maintaining their education, it’s really about having control over what they learn,” Ms. Collins said. “And unfortunately, physicians no longer have control over what they learn.”

NBPAS was formed largely in response to physicians dissatisfied with this situation. For $189 every 2 years, plus $25 for a paper certificate, NBPAS recertifies doctors originally credentialed by the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Osteopathic Association.

Instead of making physicians take proprietary tests, NBPAS requires them to earn 50 hours of Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education–accredited CME every 2 years. Physicians can select where they seek this credit, giving them the agency to “pick and choose where they want to learn more,” Ms. Collins said, noting that this allows physicians to address personal knowledge gaps, instead of mastering the prescriptive lessons issued by other boards.

While this benefits physicians, Ms. Collins added, it also reduces the bottom line.

NBPAS is a “true 501(c)(3),” she said. “We have money for rainy days, but certainly not millions. We don’t have anything close to a million in savings.” Most medical boards are making millions on top of their services, she said. “That’s not for me to rein in, but it’s for me to point out.”

Noah Rosen, MD, associate professor of neurology and psychiatry at Northwell Health, Great Neck, N.Y., and former UCNS board member, said the UCNS was not motivated by money when they decided to switch to continuous recertification.

“The UCNS budget is publicly available,” Dr. Rosen said in an interview. “This is not a money-making organization,” he added, noting that the UCNS has “been basically operating on a breakeven budget,” and that certification “is not really a money-making proposition.”

Public IRS filings from 2019 and 2020 suggest a slightly different picture. In 2019, the UCNS reported net income of $72,256. In 2020, the inaugural year of the continuous certification program, net income jumped almost fivefold to $349,108. Over the same period, total assets held by the UCNS rose from $1.97 million to $2.37 million.

For comparison, NBPAS controls approximately $500,000 in total assets. The ABIM? Just shy of $72 million.
 

Recertification highlights a generational gap

Dr. Rosen, who was not a voting board member when the UCNS decided to switch to continuous certification, suggested that the transition could have been handled more effectively.

“I think Dr. Rapoport speaks to the frustration of how they made the transition, and that it could have been done in a way that recognizes people that held the certificate in a better way,” Dr. Rosen said.

He said that the departure of Dr. Rapoport and other neurologists from the UCNS points to another trend in the certification space. “I do think it brings up a deeper issue: What’s the value of certification? Dr. Rapoport and other people have brought up the question: What actually does this certificate bring you, if it’s not recognized by the federal government, and actually is not recognized by a lot of state governments, as well, as an official certification?”

He said the answer could depend on age.

“There seems to be a difference between younger people entering into the field and people that are more established in the field already,” Dr. Rosen said. “Younger people entering the field, they see certification as a distinction, something that separates them from the experiences and maybe every other neurologist.”

Ms. Collins independently pointed out the same generational gap. She noted that when the ABMS changed their maintenance model from lifelong to periodic in 2000, approximately 60% of their physicians had to change with the times, while the remainder did not.

“They grandfathered the other 40% – the older, probably more Caucasian male physicians,” she said. “It’s just the field. It’s evolved, it’s become more diverse. They created a divide in the physician community about what is the best means to maintain your board.”

In response to these comments, and despite his negative experiences with the UCNS, Dr. Rapoport emphasized that he still places high value on subspecialty certification.

“I care a lot about certification and that is why I decided to study for and take the only exam offered at the time,” he said, “I do not need it to continue my practice in headache medicine. No one asks me if I am certified in headache medicine. My patients are referred to me because of my reputation. But I have always sought the highest level of certification I could get. What UCNS has done is to cheapen the value of their certification.”

Dr. Rosen and Ms. Collins highlighted the other side of the same conclusion: For younger physicians, board certifications are more of a career consideration than they are for older physicians, as they could mean the difference between landing or losing a job.

“The American Board of Medical Specialties and [their] 24 member boards have really woven board certification into a requirement for employment for hospital privileges and for reimbursement,” Ms. Collins said.

And so, the practical value of board certification may depend most on the tenure of the person holding paper.

“I have not gone back to get any further certification [from the UCNS],” Dr. Saper said.

Even if his name has been removed from the UCNS register, he pointed out that his printed certificate still shows it’s valid until October 31st, 2026: “If anybody asks: ‘Are you certified?’ I say: ‘Here’s my certificate.’ ”

Courtesy Joel R. Saper, MD

Headache medicine expert Joel Saper, MD once saw the formation of the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties as a sign of progress in the field. In 2005, he even helped write their first certification exam for headache medicine.

Now he’s calling fraud.

After Dr. Saper’s initial 10-year certification expired, he paid $1,800 to take a recertification test. Passing this, he earned another decade of diplomate status; or so he thought, until a couple years later, when he received word from the UCNS.

“They were changing the rules,” Dr. Saper said in an interview. “The 10-year certificate was no longer valid. You had to go through another process.”

That process, known as continuous certification, has become the new standard among medical boards. In contrast with a more conventional recertification process that depends upon high-fee, high-stakes exams taken years apart, continuous certification typically involves a relatively small annual fee coupled with online reading and assessments designed to ensure familiarity with advances in the field.

It’s not just the physicians that need to study up. Medical boards are under pressure to ensure that they are maintaining retention, a potentially challenging task with approximately 200 medical certifying boards in the United States competing for attention, and in some cases, credibility.

Pivots to new systems of recertification have been a particular flash point among physicians. In 2015, a Newsweek article described how a group of “nationally known physicians revolted against the American Board of Internal Medicine” after the board “attempted to expand its program for recertifying doctors, adding boatloads of requirements and fees to be paid by physicians.”

In response, ABIM attacked both the journalist and Newsweek, citing a conflict of interest (the journalist was married to a doctor). The journalist went on to uncover some uncomfortable statistics, including the fact that, over a 5-year period, the ABIM Foundation lost $39.8 million while paying senior administrators $125.7 million. Such revelations have likely added to a collective skepticism about medical boards and their motives.
 

The changing landscape of recertification

According to Brenda Riggott, executive director of the UCNS, the switch to continuous certification was driven by a need to keep up with new standards.

“We really found the landscape of maintaining medical certifications in general was changing,” Ms. Riggott said, highlighting how the UCNS “evaluated 13 different continuous certification models being administered by medical boards” before settling upon the present model.

Continuous certification with the UCNS now requires a $175 annual fee. Each year, diplomates read 10 journal articles, then take a 25-question online quiz to demonstrate their understanding.

“It’s really about patient care,” Ms. Riggott said in an interview. “Medicine changes rapidly. And there are a lot of advances. Evaluating that once a decade is really not enough to verify that somebody is maintaining their skills, their knowledge.”

Dr. Saper, a clinical professor of neurology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, and founder-director of the Michigan Head Pain and Neurological Institute, Ann Arbor, had no inherent qualm with transitioning to this newer process, but he did take umbrage at its execution, since his UCNS certificate still had about 7 years until expiry.

He said the UCNS should have honored existing certificates through their stated duration, citing precedent set by the American Academy of Neurology. When the AAN transitioned from lifetime board certification to a periodic recertification process, they honored the lifetime status of those who already held it, according to Dr. Saper.

“[The AAN] looked at those of us who had been boarded under the premise that we were going to be lifetime boarded ... and they said: ‘We’re going to grandfather you ... because that was the rule under which you took your initial exams.’ ... That’s what UCNS should have done,” Dr. Saper said.
 

A compromise

Under pressure from Dr. Saper and others, UCNS compromised by endorsing 10-year diplomates until the 5-year mark.

Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, was among those who spoke up, only to see the duration of his certification cut in half.

“UCNS obviously realized that they had been wrong,” Dr. Rapoport said, referring to the compromise they made.

At the 5-year mark, physicians who didn’t adopt the new system were deleted from the UCNS online database, eliminating “the only way the public would know whether or not we were certified. This was after UCNS told us we would stay on the list with a note next to our name suggesting our certification was incomplete. They did not care that this might have hurt our reputations,” Dr. Rapoport said.

“To this day, no refunds, partial or full, have been given for the $1,800 we paid for the privilege of sitting for the exam, or for our time studying, or for the expenses accrued from canceling a day in the office and traveling to a testing center,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I did not want the money back; I wanted the certification promised to me. Since they have removed my name from this list, they do owe me the $1,800. They say they do not return their fees if you fail. How about if you pass and they remove you from their list?”

Yet he went on to make clear that the real issue is the principle of the matter. “This is not about money,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is about what is fair and right.”

“The UCNS issued me a certificate for 10 years of certification in headache medicine; it is unethical and unlawful to break that contract and grant me only 5 years. Worse, they removed my name as though I do not exist. Along with Dr. Saper, I was one of the doctors that spent time and effort to advance headache medicine from October 1979, when I became a headache specialist, to today. I supported the principles of UCNS and took the first exam. I became the President of the International Headache Society and traveled the world promoting headache medicine; and this is how I am treated. Who can respect this type of certification, or this organization?”

Dr. Saper agreed: “It’s not about the money. It’s about the commitment. It’s very fraudulent.”

After the UCNS decision, Dr. Rapoport and Dr. Saper sought legal counsel, but ultimately decided not to sue the UCNS because of the lengthy process it would entail and the cost, estimated to be over $100,000.

“Our lawyers said: ‘It’s going to be years to get through it. You’ll probably win in the end, because it was fraudulent behavior,’ ” Dr. Saper said.
 

A different viewpoint

Ms. Riggott offered a different viewpoint: Nobody was guaranteed 10 years of certification.

“People do not pay for certification [from the UCNS],” Ms. Riggott said. “They pay to sit for an exam. It’s an exam administration fee. That can be construed as: ‘They paid for 10 years.’ They did not. They paid to sit for an exam. There are people who pay for an exam, and they don’t pass it, and they’re not certified. They don’t get a refund. That’s just the way high-stakes certification exams go.”

Dr. Saper and Dr. Rapoport see it differently. “The inherent reason any of us sit for an exam is to get certified.” Dr. Rapoport added. “Ms. Riggott is not being honest. There was an implied contract that if we passed, we would be granted a 10-year certification because that was what we did previously and that is what they told us would happen. Why would they have sent me this nice certificate for 10 more years of certification if she were telling the truth?”

Courtesy Dr. Alan M. Rapoport

Profits over promises

Dr. Rapoport estimates that many other neurologists had their certificates cut short and were dropped from this official list, some of them eminent members of the field, including David Watson, MD, professor and chair of neurology at West Virginia University Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, Morgantown, and Robert Cowan, MD, professor of neurology and chief of the division of headache medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“It is troubling when the organizations charged with maintaining the integrity of our specialization do not act with integrity,” Dr. Watson said. “The UCNS chose profits over promises and has refused to meaningfully engage with those of us whom they have wronged. What was once a point of pride for me (being in the second class of certified headache medicine diplomates) has become a meaningless piece of paper. This makes me sad.”

Dr. Cowan said the UCNS actions angered him while affirming his lifelong skepticism of clubs. “I was very sorry, but not surprised, to see the UCNS change the rules when the opportunity to make more money presented itself, and not surprised they did not honor their contracts. UCNS is just another scam like Best Doctors in the US and similar hypes. Neither are worth another dime of my money nor the time spent discussing them. One thing more: I have no quarrel with efforts to encourage keeping up with the field, although no one I know needs codification or direction as to which articles should be read. My outrage comes when responsible behavior is used as an excuse to line the pockets of dishonest, immoral individuals. I’m done.”

According to Ms. Riggott, the UCNS continuous certification process continues to evolve based on feedback from diplomates. She noted that “change is hard,” although the challenges of the transition appear to be paying off. “Initial retention for continuing certification is much higher than we would have expected from a high-stakes recertification exam,” she said. “So we are very, very happy about that.”
 

Proprietary tests drive revenue

According to Katie Collins, executive director of the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons, proprietary tests are a key revenue driver for medical boards, casting doubt on their educational motives.

“This isn’t really about maintaining their education, it’s really about having control over what they learn,” Ms. Collins said. “And unfortunately, physicians no longer have control over what they learn.”

NBPAS was formed largely in response to physicians dissatisfied with this situation. For $189 every 2 years, plus $25 for a paper certificate, NBPAS recertifies doctors originally credentialed by the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Osteopathic Association.

Instead of making physicians take proprietary tests, NBPAS requires them to earn 50 hours of Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education–accredited CME every 2 years. Physicians can select where they seek this credit, giving them the agency to “pick and choose where they want to learn more,” Ms. Collins said, noting that this allows physicians to address personal knowledge gaps, instead of mastering the prescriptive lessons issued by other boards.

While this benefits physicians, Ms. Collins added, it also reduces the bottom line.

NBPAS is a “true 501(c)(3),” she said. “We have money for rainy days, but certainly not millions. We don’t have anything close to a million in savings.” Most medical boards are making millions on top of their services, she said. “That’s not for me to rein in, but it’s for me to point out.”

Noah Rosen, MD, associate professor of neurology and psychiatry at Northwell Health, Great Neck, N.Y., and former UCNS board member, said the UCNS was not motivated by money when they decided to switch to continuous recertification.

“The UCNS budget is publicly available,” Dr. Rosen said in an interview. “This is not a money-making organization,” he added, noting that the UCNS has “been basically operating on a breakeven budget,” and that certification “is not really a money-making proposition.”

Public IRS filings from 2019 and 2020 suggest a slightly different picture. In 2019, the UCNS reported net income of $72,256. In 2020, the inaugural year of the continuous certification program, net income jumped almost fivefold to $349,108. Over the same period, total assets held by the UCNS rose from $1.97 million to $2.37 million.

For comparison, NBPAS controls approximately $500,000 in total assets. The ABIM? Just shy of $72 million.
 

Recertification highlights a generational gap

Dr. Rosen, who was not a voting board member when the UCNS decided to switch to continuous certification, suggested that the transition could have been handled more effectively.

“I think Dr. Rapoport speaks to the frustration of how they made the transition, and that it could have been done in a way that recognizes people that held the certificate in a better way,” Dr. Rosen said.

He said that the departure of Dr. Rapoport and other neurologists from the UCNS points to another trend in the certification space. “I do think it brings up a deeper issue: What’s the value of certification? Dr. Rapoport and other people have brought up the question: What actually does this certificate bring you, if it’s not recognized by the federal government, and actually is not recognized by a lot of state governments, as well, as an official certification?”

He said the answer could depend on age.

“There seems to be a difference between younger people entering into the field and people that are more established in the field already,” Dr. Rosen said. “Younger people entering the field, they see certification as a distinction, something that separates them from the experiences and maybe every other neurologist.”

Ms. Collins independently pointed out the same generational gap. She noted that when the ABMS changed their maintenance model from lifelong to periodic in 2000, approximately 60% of their physicians had to change with the times, while the remainder did not.

“They grandfathered the other 40% – the older, probably more Caucasian male physicians,” she said. “It’s just the field. It’s evolved, it’s become more diverse. They created a divide in the physician community about what is the best means to maintain your board.”

In response to these comments, and despite his negative experiences with the UCNS, Dr. Rapoport emphasized that he still places high value on subspecialty certification.

“I care a lot about certification and that is why I decided to study for and take the only exam offered at the time,” he said, “I do not need it to continue my practice in headache medicine. No one asks me if I am certified in headache medicine. My patients are referred to me because of my reputation. But I have always sought the highest level of certification I could get. What UCNS has done is to cheapen the value of their certification.”

Dr. Rosen and Ms. Collins highlighted the other side of the same conclusion: For younger physicians, board certifications are more of a career consideration than they are for older physicians, as they could mean the difference between landing or losing a job.

“The American Board of Medical Specialties and [their] 24 member boards have really woven board certification into a requirement for employment for hospital privileges and for reimbursement,” Ms. Collins said.

And so, the practical value of board certification may depend most on the tenure of the person holding paper.

“I have not gone back to get any further certification [from the UCNS],” Dr. Saper said.

Even if his name has been removed from the UCNS register, he pointed out that his printed certificate still shows it’s valid until October 31st, 2026: “If anybody asks: ‘Are you certified?’ I say: ‘Here’s my certificate.’ ”

Courtesy Joel R. Saper, MD

Headache medicine expert Joel Saper, MD once saw the formation of the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties as a sign of progress in the field. In 2005, he even helped write their first certification exam for headache medicine.

Now he’s calling fraud.

After Dr. Saper’s initial 10-year certification expired, he paid $1,800 to take a recertification test. Passing this, he earned another decade of diplomate status; or so he thought, until a couple years later, when he received word from the UCNS.

“They were changing the rules,” Dr. Saper said in an interview. “The 10-year certificate was no longer valid. You had to go through another process.”

That process, known as continuous certification, has become the new standard among medical boards. In contrast with a more conventional recertification process that depends upon high-fee, high-stakes exams taken years apart, continuous certification typically involves a relatively small annual fee coupled with online reading and assessments designed to ensure familiarity with advances in the field.

It’s not just the physicians that need to study up. Medical boards are under pressure to ensure that they are maintaining retention, a potentially challenging task with approximately 200 medical certifying boards in the United States competing for attention, and in some cases, credibility.

Pivots to new systems of recertification have been a particular flash point among physicians. In 2015, a Newsweek article described how a group of “nationally known physicians revolted against the American Board of Internal Medicine” after the board “attempted to expand its program for recertifying doctors, adding boatloads of requirements and fees to be paid by physicians.”

In response, ABIM attacked both the journalist and Newsweek, citing a conflict of interest (the journalist was married to a doctor). The journalist went on to uncover some uncomfortable statistics, including the fact that, over a 5-year period, the ABIM Foundation lost $39.8 million while paying senior administrators $125.7 million. Such revelations have likely added to a collective skepticism about medical boards and their motives.
 

The changing landscape of recertification

According to Brenda Riggott, executive director of the UCNS, the switch to continuous certification was driven by a need to keep up with new standards.

“We really found the landscape of maintaining medical certifications in general was changing,” Ms. Riggott said, highlighting how the UCNS “evaluated 13 different continuous certification models being administered by medical boards” before settling upon the present model.

Continuous certification with the UCNS now requires a $175 annual fee. Each year, diplomates read 10 journal articles, then take a 25-question online quiz to demonstrate their understanding.

“It’s really about patient care,” Ms. Riggott said in an interview. “Medicine changes rapidly. And there are a lot of advances. Evaluating that once a decade is really not enough to verify that somebody is maintaining their skills, their knowledge.”

Dr. Saper, a clinical professor of neurology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, and founder-director of the Michigan Head Pain and Neurological Institute, Ann Arbor, had no inherent qualm with transitioning to this newer process, but he did take umbrage at its execution, since his UCNS certificate still had about 7 years until expiry.

He said the UCNS should have honored existing certificates through their stated duration, citing precedent set by the American Academy of Neurology. When the AAN transitioned from lifetime board certification to a periodic recertification process, they honored the lifetime status of those who already held it, according to Dr. Saper.

“[The AAN] looked at those of us who had been boarded under the premise that we were going to be lifetime boarded ... and they said: ‘We’re going to grandfather you ... because that was the rule under which you took your initial exams.’ ... That’s what UCNS should have done,” Dr. Saper said.
 

A compromise

Under pressure from Dr. Saper and others, UCNS compromised by endorsing 10-year diplomates until the 5-year mark.

Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, was among those who spoke up, only to see the duration of his certification cut in half.

“UCNS obviously realized that they had been wrong,” Dr. Rapoport said, referring to the compromise they made.

At the 5-year mark, physicians who didn’t adopt the new system were deleted from the UCNS online database, eliminating “the only way the public would know whether or not we were certified. This was after UCNS told us we would stay on the list with a note next to our name suggesting our certification was incomplete. They did not care that this might have hurt our reputations,” Dr. Rapoport said.

“To this day, no refunds, partial or full, have been given for the $1,800 we paid for the privilege of sitting for the exam, or for our time studying, or for the expenses accrued from canceling a day in the office and traveling to a testing center,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I did not want the money back; I wanted the certification promised to me. Since they have removed my name from this list, they do owe me the $1,800. They say they do not return their fees if you fail. How about if you pass and they remove you from their list?”

Yet he went on to make clear that the real issue is the principle of the matter. “This is not about money,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is about what is fair and right.”

“The UCNS issued me a certificate for 10 years of certification in headache medicine; it is unethical and unlawful to break that contract and grant me only 5 years. Worse, they removed my name as though I do not exist. Along with Dr. Saper, I was one of the doctors that spent time and effort to advance headache medicine from October 1979, when I became a headache specialist, to today. I supported the principles of UCNS and took the first exam. I became the President of the International Headache Society and traveled the world promoting headache medicine; and this is how I am treated. Who can respect this type of certification, or this organization?”

Dr. Saper agreed: “It’s not about the money. It’s about the commitment. It’s very fraudulent.”

After the UCNS decision, Dr. Rapoport and Dr. Saper sought legal counsel, but ultimately decided not to sue the UCNS because of the lengthy process it would entail and the cost, estimated to be over $100,000.

“Our lawyers said: ‘It’s going to be years to get through it. You’ll probably win in the end, because it was fraudulent behavior,’ ” Dr. Saper said.
 

A different viewpoint

Ms. Riggott offered a different viewpoint: Nobody was guaranteed 10 years of certification.

“People do not pay for certification [from the UCNS],” Ms. Riggott said. “They pay to sit for an exam. It’s an exam administration fee. That can be construed as: ‘They paid for 10 years.’ They did not. They paid to sit for an exam. There are people who pay for an exam, and they don’t pass it, and they’re not certified. They don’t get a refund. That’s just the way high-stakes certification exams go.”

Dr. Saper and Dr. Rapoport see it differently. “The inherent reason any of us sit for an exam is to get certified.” Dr. Rapoport added. “Ms. Riggott is not being honest. There was an implied contract that if we passed, we would be granted a 10-year certification because that was what we did previously and that is what they told us would happen. Why would they have sent me this nice certificate for 10 more years of certification if she were telling the truth?”

Courtesy Dr. Alan M. Rapoport

Profits over promises

Dr. Rapoport estimates that many other neurologists had their certificates cut short and were dropped from this official list, some of them eminent members of the field, including David Watson, MD, professor and chair of neurology at West Virginia University Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, Morgantown, and Robert Cowan, MD, professor of neurology and chief of the division of headache medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“It is troubling when the organizations charged with maintaining the integrity of our specialization do not act with integrity,” Dr. Watson said. “The UCNS chose profits over promises and has refused to meaningfully engage with those of us whom they have wronged. What was once a point of pride for me (being in the second class of certified headache medicine diplomates) has become a meaningless piece of paper. This makes me sad.”

Dr. Cowan said the UCNS actions angered him while affirming his lifelong skepticism of clubs. “I was very sorry, but not surprised, to see the UCNS change the rules when the opportunity to make more money presented itself, and not surprised they did not honor their contracts. UCNS is just another scam like Best Doctors in the US and similar hypes. Neither are worth another dime of my money nor the time spent discussing them. One thing more: I have no quarrel with efforts to encourage keeping up with the field, although no one I know needs codification or direction as to which articles should be read. My outrage comes when responsible behavior is used as an excuse to line the pockets of dishonest, immoral individuals. I’m done.”

According to Ms. Riggott, the UCNS continuous certification process continues to evolve based on feedback from diplomates. She noted that “change is hard,” although the challenges of the transition appear to be paying off. “Initial retention for continuing certification is much higher than we would have expected from a high-stakes recertification exam,” she said. “So we are very, very happy about that.”
 

Proprietary tests drive revenue

According to Katie Collins, executive director of the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons, proprietary tests are a key revenue driver for medical boards, casting doubt on their educational motives.

“This isn’t really about maintaining their education, it’s really about having control over what they learn,” Ms. Collins said. “And unfortunately, physicians no longer have control over what they learn.”

NBPAS was formed largely in response to physicians dissatisfied with this situation. For $189 every 2 years, plus $25 for a paper certificate, NBPAS recertifies doctors originally credentialed by the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Osteopathic Association.

Instead of making physicians take proprietary tests, NBPAS requires them to earn 50 hours of Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education–accredited CME every 2 years. Physicians can select where they seek this credit, giving them the agency to “pick and choose where they want to learn more,” Ms. Collins said, noting that this allows physicians to address personal knowledge gaps, instead of mastering the prescriptive lessons issued by other boards.

While this benefits physicians, Ms. Collins added, it also reduces the bottom line.

NBPAS is a “true 501(c)(3),” she said. “We have money for rainy days, but certainly not millions. We don’t have anything close to a million in savings.” Most medical boards are making millions on top of their services, she said. “That’s not for me to rein in, but it’s for me to point out.”

Noah Rosen, MD, associate professor of neurology and psychiatry at Northwell Health, Great Neck, N.Y., and former UCNS board member, said the UCNS was not motivated by money when they decided to switch to continuous recertification.

“The UCNS budget is publicly available,” Dr. Rosen said in an interview. “This is not a money-making organization,” he added, noting that the UCNS has “been basically operating on a breakeven budget,” and that certification “is not really a money-making proposition.”

Public IRS filings from 2019 and 2020 suggest a slightly different picture. In 2019, the UCNS reported net income of $72,256. In 2020, the inaugural year of the continuous certification program, net income jumped almost fivefold to $349,108. Over the same period, total assets held by the UCNS rose from $1.97 million to $2.37 million.

For comparison, NBPAS controls approximately $500,000 in total assets. The ABIM? Just shy of $72 million.
 

Recertification highlights a generational gap

Dr. Rosen, who was not a voting board member when the UCNS decided to switch to continuous certification, suggested that the transition could have been handled more effectively.

“I think Dr. Rapoport speaks to the frustration of how they made the transition, and that it could have been done in a way that recognizes people that held the certificate in a better way,” Dr. Rosen said.

He said that the departure of Dr. Rapoport and other neurologists from the UCNS points to another trend in the certification space. “I do think it brings up a deeper issue: What’s the value of certification? Dr. Rapoport and other people have brought up the question: What actually does this certificate bring you, if it’s not recognized by the federal government, and actually is not recognized by a lot of state governments, as well, as an official certification?”

He said the answer could depend on age.

“There seems to be a difference between younger people entering into the field and people that are more established in the field already,” Dr. Rosen said. “Younger people entering the field, they see certification as a distinction, something that separates them from the experiences and maybe every other neurologist.”

Ms. Collins independently pointed out the same generational gap. She noted that when the ABMS changed their maintenance model from lifelong to periodic in 2000, approximately 60% of their physicians had to change with the times, while the remainder did not.

“They grandfathered the other 40% – the older, probably more Caucasian male physicians,” she said. “It’s just the field. It’s evolved, it’s become more diverse. They created a divide in the physician community about what is the best means to maintain your board.”

In response to these comments, and despite his negative experiences with the UCNS, Dr. Rapoport emphasized that he still places high value on subspecialty certification.

“I care a lot about certification and that is why I decided to study for and take the only exam offered at the time,” he said, “I do not need it to continue my practice in headache medicine. No one asks me if I am certified in headache medicine. My patients are referred to me because of my reputation. But I have always sought the highest level of certification I could get. What UCNS has done is to cheapen the value of their certification.”

Dr. Rosen and Ms. Collins highlighted the other side of the same conclusion: For younger physicians, board certifications are more of a career consideration than they are for older physicians, as they could mean the difference between landing or losing a job.

“The American Board of Medical Specialties and [their] 24 member boards have really woven board certification into a requirement for employment for hospital privileges and for reimbursement,” Ms. Collins said.

And so, the practical value of board certification may depend most on the tenure of the person holding paper.

“I have not gone back to get any further certification [from the UCNS],” Dr. Saper said.

Even if his name has been removed from the UCNS register, he pointed out that his printed certificate still shows it’s valid until October 31st, 2026: “If anybody asks: ‘Are you certified?’ I say: ‘Here’s my certificate.’ ”

Courtesy Joel R. Saper, MD

Moderate consumption of coffee, with or without sugar, is associated with a reduced risk of death, according to prospective cohort study.

Among more than 170,000 people in the United Kingdom, those who drank about two to four cups of coffee a day, with or without sugar, had a lower rate of death than those who didn’t drink coffee, reported lead author Dan Liu, MD, of the department of epidemiology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

“Previous observational studies have suggested an association between coffee intake and reduced risk for death, but they did not distinguish between coffee consumed with sugar or artificial sweeteners and coffee consumed without,” Dr. Liu, who is also of the department of public health and preventive medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

To learn more, the investigators turned to the UK Biobank, which recruited approximately half a million participants in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2010 to undergo a variety of questionnaires, interviews, physical measurements, and medical tests. Out of this group, 171,616 participants completed at least one dietary questionnaire and met the criteria for the present study, including lack of cancer or cardiovascular disease upon enrollment.

Results from these questionnaires showed that 55.4% of participants drank coffee without any sweetener, 14.3% drank coffee with sugar, 6.1% drank coffee with artificial sweetener, and 24.2% did not drink coffee at all. Coffee drinkers were further sorted into groups based on how many cups of coffee they drank per day.
 

Coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause

Over the course of about 7 years, 3,177 of the participants died, including 1,725 who died from cancer and 628 who died from cardiovascular disease.

After accounting for other factors that might impact risk of death, like lifestyle choices, the investigators found that coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer, than those who didn’t drink coffee at all. This benefit was observed across types of coffee, including ground, instant, and decaffeinated varieties. The protective effects of coffee were most apparent in people who drank about two to four cups a day, among whom death was about 30% less likely, regardless of whether they added sugar to their coffee or not. Individuals who drank coffee with artificial sweetener did not live significantly longer than those who drank no coffee at all; however, the investigators suggested that this result may have been skewed by higher rates of negative health factors, such as obesity and hypertension, in the artificial sweetener group.

Dr. Liu and colleagues noted that their findings align with previous studies linking coffee consumption with survival. Like those other studies, the present data revealed a “U-shaped” benefit curve, in which moderate coffee consumption was associated with longer life, whereas low or no consumption and high consumption were not.
 

Experts caution against drinking sweetened beverages despite new findings

Although the present findings suggested that adding sugar did not eliminate the health benefits of coffee, Dr. Liu and colleagues still cautioned against sweetened beverages, citing widely known associations between sugar consumption and poor health.

In an accompanying editorial, Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, deputy editor of Annals of Internal Medicine, pointed out a key detail from the data: the amount of sugar added to coffee in the U.K. study may be dwarfed by the amount consumed by some coffee drinkers across the pond.

“The average dose of added sugar per cup of sweetened coffee [in the study] was only a little over a teaspoon, or about 4 grams,” Dr. Wee wrote. “This is a far cry from the 15 grams of sugar in an 8-ounce cup of caramel macchiato at a popular U.S. coffee chain.”

Still, Dr. Wee, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the obesity research program in the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested that your typical coffee drinker can feel safe in their daily habit.

“The evidence does not suggest a need for most coffee drinkers – particularly those who drink it with no or modest amounts of sugar – to eliminate coffee,” she wrote. “So drink up – but it would be prudent to avoid too many caramel macchiatos while more evidence brews.”

Estefanía Toledo, MD, MPH, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and public health at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, offered a similar takeaway.

Courtesy University of Navarra

“For those who enjoy drinking coffee, are not pregnant or lactating, and do not have special health conditions, coffee consumption could be considered part of a healthy lifestyle,” Dr. Toledo said in a written comment. “I would recommend adding as little sugar as possible to coffee until more evidence has been accrued.”

Dr. Toledo, who previously published a study showing a link between coffee and extended survival, noted that moderate coffee consumption has “repeatedly” been associated with lower rates of “several chronic diseases” and death, but there still isn’t enough evidence to recommend coffee for those who don’t already drink it.

More long-term research is needed, Dr. Toledo said, ideally with studies comparing changes in coffee consumption and health outcomes over time. These may not be forthcoming, however, as such trials are “not easy and feasible to conduct.”

David Kao, MD, assistant professor of medicine-cardiology and medical director of the school of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said that the study conducted by Dr. Liu and colleagues is a “very well-executed analysis” that strengthens our confidence in the safety of long-term coffee consumption, even for patients with heart disease.

Dr. Kao, who recently published an analysis showing that higher coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, refrained from advising anyone to up their coffee quota.

“I remain cautious about stating too strongly that people should increase coffee intake purely to improve survival,” Dr. Kao said in a written comment. “That said, it does not appear harmful to increase it some, until you drink consistently more than six to seven cups per day.”

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, and others. Dr. Toledo and Dr. Kao disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Moderate consumption of coffee, with or without sugar, is associated with a reduced risk of death, according to prospective cohort study.

Among more than 170,000 people in the United Kingdom, those who drank about two to four cups of coffee a day, with or without sugar, had a lower rate of death than those who didn’t drink coffee, reported lead author Dan Liu, MD, of the department of epidemiology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

“Previous observational studies have suggested an association between coffee intake and reduced risk for death, but they did not distinguish between coffee consumed with sugar or artificial sweeteners and coffee consumed without,” Dr. Liu, who is also of the department of public health and preventive medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

To learn more, the investigators turned to the UK Biobank, which recruited approximately half a million participants in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2010 to undergo a variety of questionnaires, interviews, physical measurements, and medical tests. Out of this group, 171,616 participants completed at least one dietary questionnaire and met the criteria for the present study, including lack of cancer or cardiovascular disease upon enrollment.

Results from these questionnaires showed that 55.4% of participants drank coffee without any sweetener, 14.3% drank coffee with sugar, 6.1% drank coffee with artificial sweetener, and 24.2% did not drink coffee at all. Coffee drinkers were further sorted into groups based on how many cups of coffee they drank per day.
 

Coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause

Over the course of about 7 years, 3,177 of the participants died, including 1,725 who died from cancer and 628 who died from cardiovascular disease.

After accounting for other factors that might impact risk of death, like lifestyle choices, the investigators found that coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer, than those who didn’t drink coffee at all. This benefit was observed across types of coffee, including ground, instant, and decaffeinated varieties. The protective effects of coffee were most apparent in people who drank about two to four cups a day, among whom death was about 30% less likely, regardless of whether they added sugar to their coffee or not. Individuals who drank coffee with artificial sweetener did not live significantly longer than those who drank no coffee at all; however, the investigators suggested that this result may have been skewed by higher rates of negative health factors, such as obesity and hypertension, in the artificial sweetener group.

Dr. Liu and colleagues noted that their findings align with previous studies linking coffee consumption with survival. Like those other studies, the present data revealed a “U-shaped” benefit curve, in which moderate coffee consumption was associated with longer life, whereas low or no consumption and high consumption were not.
 

Experts caution against drinking sweetened beverages despite new findings

Although the present findings suggested that adding sugar did not eliminate the health benefits of coffee, Dr. Liu and colleagues still cautioned against sweetened beverages, citing widely known associations between sugar consumption and poor health.

In an accompanying editorial, Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, deputy editor of Annals of Internal Medicine, pointed out a key detail from the data: the amount of sugar added to coffee in the U.K. study may be dwarfed by the amount consumed by some coffee drinkers across the pond.

“The average dose of added sugar per cup of sweetened coffee [in the study] was only a little over a teaspoon, or about 4 grams,” Dr. Wee wrote. “This is a far cry from the 15 grams of sugar in an 8-ounce cup of caramel macchiato at a popular U.S. coffee chain.”

Still, Dr. Wee, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the obesity research program in the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested that your typical coffee drinker can feel safe in their daily habit.

“The evidence does not suggest a need for most coffee drinkers – particularly those who drink it with no or modest amounts of sugar – to eliminate coffee,” she wrote. “So drink up – but it would be prudent to avoid too many caramel macchiatos while more evidence brews.”

Estefanía Toledo, MD, MPH, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and public health at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, offered a similar takeaway.

Courtesy University of Navarra

“For those who enjoy drinking coffee, are not pregnant or lactating, and do not have special health conditions, coffee consumption could be considered part of a healthy lifestyle,” Dr. Toledo said in a written comment. “I would recommend adding as little sugar as possible to coffee until more evidence has been accrued.”

Dr. Toledo, who previously published a study showing a link between coffee and extended survival, noted that moderate coffee consumption has “repeatedly” been associated with lower rates of “several chronic diseases” and death, but there still isn’t enough evidence to recommend coffee for those who don’t already drink it.

More long-term research is needed, Dr. Toledo said, ideally with studies comparing changes in coffee consumption and health outcomes over time. These may not be forthcoming, however, as such trials are “not easy and feasible to conduct.”

David Kao, MD, assistant professor of medicine-cardiology and medical director of the school of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said that the study conducted by Dr. Liu and colleagues is a “very well-executed analysis” that strengthens our confidence in the safety of long-term coffee consumption, even for patients with heart disease.

Dr. Kao, who recently published an analysis showing that higher coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, refrained from advising anyone to up their coffee quota.

“I remain cautious about stating too strongly that people should increase coffee intake purely to improve survival,” Dr. Kao said in a written comment. “That said, it does not appear harmful to increase it some, until you drink consistently more than six to seven cups per day.”

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, and others. Dr. Toledo and Dr. Kao disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Moderate consumption of coffee, with or without sugar, is associated with a reduced risk of death, according to prospective cohort study.

Among more than 170,000 people in the United Kingdom, those who drank about two to four cups of coffee a day, with or without sugar, had a lower rate of death than those who didn’t drink coffee, reported lead author Dan Liu, MD, of the department of epidemiology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

“Previous observational studies have suggested an association between coffee intake and reduced risk for death, but they did not distinguish between coffee consumed with sugar or artificial sweeteners and coffee consumed without,” Dr. Liu, who is also of the department of public health and preventive medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

To learn more, the investigators turned to the UK Biobank, which recruited approximately half a million participants in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2010 to undergo a variety of questionnaires, interviews, physical measurements, and medical tests. Out of this group, 171,616 participants completed at least one dietary questionnaire and met the criteria for the present study, including lack of cancer or cardiovascular disease upon enrollment.

Results from these questionnaires showed that 55.4% of participants drank coffee without any sweetener, 14.3% drank coffee with sugar, 6.1% drank coffee with artificial sweetener, and 24.2% did not drink coffee at all. Coffee drinkers were further sorted into groups based on how many cups of coffee they drank per day.
 

Coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause

Over the course of about 7 years, 3,177 of the participants died, including 1,725 who died from cancer and 628 who died from cardiovascular disease.

After accounting for other factors that might impact risk of death, like lifestyle choices, the investigators found that coffee drinkers were significantly less likely to die from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer, than those who didn’t drink coffee at all. This benefit was observed across types of coffee, including ground, instant, and decaffeinated varieties. The protective effects of coffee were most apparent in people who drank about two to four cups a day, among whom death was about 30% less likely, regardless of whether they added sugar to their coffee or not. Individuals who drank coffee with artificial sweetener did not live significantly longer than those who drank no coffee at all; however, the investigators suggested that this result may have been skewed by higher rates of negative health factors, such as obesity and hypertension, in the artificial sweetener group.

Dr. Liu and colleagues noted that their findings align with previous studies linking coffee consumption with survival. Like those other studies, the present data revealed a “U-shaped” benefit curve, in which moderate coffee consumption was associated with longer life, whereas low or no consumption and high consumption were not.
 

Experts caution against drinking sweetened beverages despite new findings

Although the present findings suggested that adding sugar did not eliminate the health benefits of coffee, Dr. Liu and colleagues still cautioned against sweetened beverages, citing widely known associations between sugar consumption and poor health.

In an accompanying editorial, Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, deputy editor of Annals of Internal Medicine, pointed out a key detail from the data: the amount of sugar added to coffee in the U.K. study may be dwarfed by the amount consumed by some coffee drinkers across the pond.

“The average dose of added sugar per cup of sweetened coffee [in the study] was only a little over a teaspoon, or about 4 grams,” Dr. Wee wrote. “This is a far cry from the 15 grams of sugar in an 8-ounce cup of caramel macchiato at a popular U.S. coffee chain.”

Still, Dr. Wee, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the obesity research program in the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested that your typical coffee drinker can feel safe in their daily habit.

“The evidence does not suggest a need for most coffee drinkers – particularly those who drink it with no or modest amounts of sugar – to eliminate coffee,” she wrote. “So drink up – but it would be prudent to avoid too many caramel macchiatos while more evidence brews.”

Estefanía Toledo, MD, MPH, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and public health at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, offered a similar takeaway.

Courtesy University of Navarra

“For those who enjoy drinking coffee, are not pregnant or lactating, and do not have special health conditions, coffee consumption could be considered part of a healthy lifestyle,” Dr. Toledo said in a written comment. “I would recommend adding as little sugar as possible to coffee until more evidence has been accrued.”

Dr. Toledo, who previously published a study showing a link between coffee and extended survival, noted that moderate coffee consumption has “repeatedly” been associated with lower rates of “several chronic diseases” and death, but there still isn’t enough evidence to recommend coffee for those who don’t already drink it.

More long-term research is needed, Dr. Toledo said, ideally with studies comparing changes in coffee consumption and health outcomes over time. These may not be forthcoming, however, as such trials are “not easy and feasible to conduct.”

David Kao, MD, assistant professor of medicine-cardiology and medical director of the school of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said that the study conducted by Dr. Liu and colleagues is a “very well-executed analysis” that strengthens our confidence in the safety of long-term coffee consumption, even for patients with heart disease.

Dr. Kao, who recently published an analysis showing that higher coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, refrained from advising anyone to up their coffee quota.

“I remain cautious about stating too strongly that people should increase coffee intake purely to improve survival,” Dr. Kao said in a written comment. “That said, it does not appear harmful to increase it some, until you drink consistently more than six to seven cups per day.”

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, and others. Dr. Toledo and Dr. Kao disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes has just been published by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which is comprised of experts representing the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. Expert consensus statements have previously offered some recommendations for managing these syndromes, but clinical data are scarce, so the present review “is intended to establish a starting point for future research,” lead author C. Richard Boland, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

According to the investigators, “there are essentially no long-term prospective controlled studies of comparative effectiveness of management strategies for these syndromes.” As a result, their recommendations are based on “low-quality” evidence according to GRADE criteria.

Still, Dr. Boland and colleagues highlighted that “there has been tremendous progress in recent years, both in understanding the underlying genetics that underpin these disorders and in elucidating the biology of associated premalignant and malignant conditions.”

The guideline was published online in Gastroenterology .
 

Four syndromes reviewed

The investigators gathered these data to provide an overview of genetic and clinical features for each syndrome, as well as management strategies. Four disorders are included: juvenile polyposis syndrome; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome; and PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, encompassing Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome.

Although all gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are caused by germline alterations, Dr. Boland and colleagues pointed out that diagnoses are typically made based on clinical criteria, with germline results serving as confirmatory evidence.

The guideline recommends that any patient with a family history of hamartomatous polyps, or with a history of at least two hamartomatous polyps, should undergo genetic testing. The guideline also provides more nuanced genetic testing algorithms for each syndrome.

Among all the hamartomatous polyp disorders, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is most understood, according to the investigators. It is caused by aberrations in the STK11 gene, and is characterized by polyps with “branching bands of smooth muscle covered by hyperplastic glandular mucosa” that may occur in the stomach, small intestine, and colon. Patients are also at risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

For management of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, the guideline advises frequent endoscopic surveillance to prevent mechanical obstruction and bleeding, as well as multidisciplinary surveillance of the breasts, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and lungs.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome is most often characterized by solitary, sporadic polyps in the colorectum (98% of patients affected), followed distantly by polyps in the stomach (14%), ileum (7%), jejunum (7%), and duodenum (7%). The condition is linked with abnormalities in BMPR1A or SMAD4 genes, with SMAD4 germline abnormalities more often leading to “massive” gastric polyps, gastrointestinal bleeding, protein-losing enteropathy, and a higher incidence of gastric cancer in adulthood. Most patients with SMAD4 mutations also have hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, characterized by gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, arteriovenous malformations, and epistaxis.

Management of juvenile polyposis syndrome depends on frequent colonoscopies with polypectomies beginning at 12-15 years.

“The goal of surveillance in juvenile polyposis syndrome is to mitigate symptoms related to the disorder and decrease the risk of complications from the manifestations, including cancer,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote.

PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, which includes both Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome, is caused by abnormalities in the eponymous PTEN gene. Patients with the condition have an increased risk of colon cancer and polyposis, as well as extraintestinal cancers.

Diagnosis of PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome may be complex, involving “clinical examination, mammography and breast MRI, thyroid ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and renal ultrasound,” according to the guideline.

After diagnosis, frequent colonoscopies are recommended, typically starting at age 35 years, as well as continued surveillance of other organs.

Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome, which involves attenuated colonic polyposis, is the rarest of the four disorders, having been reported in only “a few families,” according to the guideline. The condition has been linked with “large duplications of the promoter region or entire GREM1 gene.”

Onset is typically in the late 20s, “which is when colonoscopic surveillance should begin,” the investigators wrote. More data are needed to determine appropriate surveillance intervals and if the condition is associated with increased risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

This call for more research into gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes carried through to the conclusion of the guideline.

“Long-term prospective studies of mutation carriers are still needed to further clarify the risk of cancer and the role of surveillance in these syndromes,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote. “With increases in genetic testing and evaluation, future studies will be conducted with more robust cohorts of genetically characterized, less heterogeneous populations. However, there is also a need to study patients and families with unusual phenotypes where no genotype can be found.”

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest with the current guideline; however, they provided a list of industry relationships, including Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer, among others.

A clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes has just been published by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which is comprised of experts representing the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. Expert consensus statements have previously offered some recommendations for managing these syndromes, but clinical data are scarce, so the present review “is intended to establish a starting point for future research,” lead author C. Richard Boland, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

According to the investigators, “there are essentially no long-term prospective controlled studies of comparative effectiveness of management strategies for these syndromes.” As a result, their recommendations are based on “low-quality” evidence according to GRADE criteria.

Still, Dr. Boland and colleagues highlighted that “there has been tremendous progress in recent years, both in understanding the underlying genetics that underpin these disorders and in elucidating the biology of associated premalignant and malignant conditions.”

The guideline was published online in Gastroenterology .
 

Four syndromes reviewed

The investigators gathered these data to provide an overview of genetic and clinical features for each syndrome, as well as management strategies. Four disorders are included: juvenile polyposis syndrome; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome; and PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, encompassing Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome.

Although all gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are caused by germline alterations, Dr. Boland and colleagues pointed out that diagnoses are typically made based on clinical criteria, with germline results serving as confirmatory evidence.

The guideline recommends that any patient with a family history of hamartomatous polyps, or with a history of at least two hamartomatous polyps, should undergo genetic testing. The guideline also provides more nuanced genetic testing algorithms for each syndrome.

Among all the hamartomatous polyp disorders, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is most understood, according to the investigators. It is caused by aberrations in the STK11 gene, and is characterized by polyps with “branching bands of smooth muscle covered by hyperplastic glandular mucosa” that may occur in the stomach, small intestine, and colon. Patients are also at risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

For management of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, the guideline advises frequent endoscopic surveillance to prevent mechanical obstruction and bleeding, as well as multidisciplinary surveillance of the breasts, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and lungs.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome is most often characterized by solitary, sporadic polyps in the colorectum (98% of patients affected), followed distantly by polyps in the stomach (14%), ileum (7%), jejunum (7%), and duodenum (7%). The condition is linked with abnormalities in BMPR1A or SMAD4 genes, with SMAD4 germline abnormalities more often leading to “massive” gastric polyps, gastrointestinal bleeding, protein-losing enteropathy, and a higher incidence of gastric cancer in adulthood. Most patients with SMAD4 mutations also have hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, characterized by gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, arteriovenous malformations, and epistaxis.

Management of juvenile polyposis syndrome depends on frequent colonoscopies with polypectomies beginning at 12-15 years.

“The goal of surveillance in juvenile polyposis syndrome is to mitigate symptoms related to the disorder and decrease the risk of complications from the manifestations, including cancer,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote.

PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, which includes both Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome, is caused by abnormalities in the eponymous PTEN gene. Patients with the condition have an increased risk of colon cancer and polyposis, as well as extraintestinal cancers.

Diagnosis of PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome may be complex, involving “clinical examination, mammography and breast MRI, thyroid ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and renal ultrasound,” according to the guideline.

After diagnosis, frequent colonoscopies are recommended, typically starting at age 35 years, as well as continued surveillance of other organs.

Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome, which involves attenuated colonic polyposis, is the rarest of the four disorders, having been reported in only “a few families,” according to the guideline. The condition has been linked with “large duplications of the promoter region or entire GREM1 gene.”

Onset is typically in the late 20s, “which is when colonoscopic surveillance should begin,” the investigators wrote. More data are needed to determine appropriate surveillance intervals and if the condition is associated with increased risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

This call for more research into gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes carried through to the conclusion of the guideline.

“Long-term prospective studies of mutation carriers are still needed to further clarify the risk of cancer and the role of surveillance in these syndromes,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote. “With increases in genetic testing and evaluation, future studies will be conducted with more robust cohorts of genetically characterized, less heterogeneous populations. However, there is also a need to study patients and families with unusual phenotypes where no genotype can be found.”

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest with the current guideline; however, they provided a list of industry relationships, including Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer, among others.

A clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes has just been published by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which is comprised of experts representing the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. Expert consensus statements have previously offered some recommendations for managing these syndromes, but clinical data are scarce, so the present review “is intended to establish a starting point for future research,” lead author C. Richard Boland, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

According to the investigators, “there are essentially no long-term prospective controlled studies of comparative effectiveness of management strategies for these syndromes.” As a result, their recommendations are based on “low-quality” evidence according to GRADE criteria.

Still, Dr. Boland and colleagues highlighted that “there has been tremendous progress in recent years, both in understanding the underlying genetics that underpin these disorders and in elucidating the biology of associated premalignant and malignant conditions.”

The guideline was published online in Gastroenterology .
 

Four syndromes reviewed

The investigators gathered these data to provide an overview of genetic and clinical features for each syndrome, as well as management strategies. Four disorders are included: juvenile polyposis syndrome; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome; and PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, encompassing Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome.

Although all gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are caused by germline alterations, Dr. Boland and colleagues pointed out that diagnoses are typically made based on clinical criteria, with germline results serving as confirmatory evidence.

The guideline recommends that any patient with a family history of hamartomatous polyps, or with a history of at least two hamartomatous polyps, should undergo genetic testing. The guideline also provides more nuanced genetic testing algorithms for each syndrome.

Among all the hamartomatous polyp disorders, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is most understood, according to the investigators. It is caused by aberrations in the STK11 gene, and is characterized by polyps with “branching bands of smooth muscle covered by hyperplastic glandular mucosa” that may occur in the stomach, small intestine, and colon. Patients are also at risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

For management of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, the guideline advises frequent endoscopic surveillance to prevent mechanical obstruction and bleeding, as well as multidisciplinary surveillance of the breasts, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and lungs.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome is most often characterized by solitary, sporadic polyps in the colorectum (98% of patients affected), followed distantly by polyps in the stomach (14%), ileum (7%), jejunum (7%), and duodenum (7%). The condition is linked with abnormalities in BMPR1A or SMAD4 genes, with SMAD4 germline abnormalities more often leading to “massive” gastric polyps, gastrointestinal bleeding, protein-losing enteropathy, and a higher incidence of gastric cancer in adulthood. Most patients with SMAD4 mutations also have hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, characterized by gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, arteriovenous malformations, and epistaxis.

Management of juvenile polyposis syndrome depends on frequent colonoscopies with polypectomies beginning at 12-15 years.

“The goal of surveillance in juvenile polyposis syndrome is to mitigate symptoms related to the disorder and decrease the risk of complications from the manifestations, including cancer,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote.

PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, which includes both Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome, is caused by abnormalities in the eponymous PTEN gene. Patients with the condition have an increased risk of colon cancer and polyposis, as well as extraintestinal cancers.

Diagnosis of PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome may be complex, involving “clinical examination, mammography and breast MRI, thyroid ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and renal ultrasound,” according to the guideline.

After diagnosis, frequent colonoscopies are recommended, typically starting at age 35 years, as well as continued surveillance of other organs.

Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome, which involves attenuated colonic polyposis, is the rarest of the four disorders, having been reported in only “a few families,” according to the guideline. The condition has been linked with “large duplications of the promoter region or entire GREM1 gene.”

Onset is typically in the late 20s, “which is when colonoscopic surveillance should begin,” the investigators wrote. More data are needed to determine appropriate surveillance intervals and if the condition is associated with increased risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

This call for more research into gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes carried through to the conclusion of the guideline.

“Long-term prospective studies of mutation carriers are still needed to further clarify the risk of cancer and the role of surveillance in these syndromes,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote. “With increases in genetic testing and evaluation, future studies will be conducted with more robust cohorts of genetically characterized, less heterogeneous populations. However, there is also a need to study patients and families with unusual phenotypes where no genotype can be found.”

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest with the current guideline; however, they provided a list of industry relationships, including Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer, among others.