For over a decade, the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has been recommending that men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option.

But the NCCN has now reversed this long-standing recommendation in the latest revision of its prostate cancer guideline.

The organization now recommends that low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance or radiation therapy or surgery, with equal weight given to all three of these initial options.

The change is seen by some as a retreat to the past and was harshly criticized by many experts on Twitter. The complaints were voiced in unusually blunt and strong language for physicians.

“This is a terrible step back that impacts every urologist,” commented John Griffith, MD, of Hartford Healthcare, who practices in New Britain, Conn.

Dr. Griffith explained that he prints out the NCCN guidance with “every patient newly diagnosed” and that the preferred designation is a “huge help” in reassuring them about not treating low-risk disease initially.

In a Twitter thread, Benjamin Davies, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, facetiously wondered if a time warp was at play: “To suggest for a millisecond that active surveillance isn’t the preferred method for low-risk men is bizarre thinking ... Is this 1980?”

“I’m baffled,” said Brian Chapin, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in another Twitter thread.

“This is ludicrous,” said Andrew Vickers, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in a tweet.

Alexander Kutikov, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, commented on Twitter that the change “seems off the rails…a bit stunned by this.”

Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and Minhaj Siddiqui, MD, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore both called the move a “step backward.”

Many others also expressed disappointment in the NCCN, whose guidelines are hugely influential because of the role they play clinically as well as with payors and the legal system.

“A huge setback & frankly a disgrace for @NCCN and its processes,” commented Fox Chase’s Dr. Kutikov.

Stacy Loeb, MD, of NYU Langone Health in New York City, suggested the new guidance may stunt use of active surveillance in the United States. She tweeted: “The updated NCCN guideline certainly won’t help the lagging and heterogenous uptake of active surveillance in the U.S. We should be carefully expanding the pool for active surveillance, not narrowing it.”

The purpose of active surveillance is to avoid adverse events from treatment, which can be life-changing as they include incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

The rationale is that many men with low-risk prostate cancer may not need treatment for their disease, as the disease may be slow-growing and may never threaten their life. With active surveillance, men are instead monitored with blood tests, scans, and biopsies to watch for worsening disease, and treated only when there are signs of disease progression.

This active surveillance approach has grown in acceptance among American patients since 2010.

The concern now is that the change in guidance from the NCCN will lead to a reduction in active surveillance, and an increase in initial treatment with surgery and radiotherapy for low-risk disease, which is considered by many to be “overtreatment’ of this disease and may not be medically necessary.  

For example, UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg said he feared that the changed guidance “will be used by urologists and radiation oncologists to justify overtreatment of low-risk disease.”

Dr. Kutikov agreed but described that possibility differently, citing the risk of lawsuits. He observed that without the NCCN’s “medico-legal buffer” of active surveillance as the preferred initial treatment, there are “further incentives” for overtreatment.

The new NCCN guidance also conflicts with the American Urological Association’s guidelines and dissolves what was once a mostly united front from the two major organizations on active surveillance and low-risk disease.

The AUA Guideline reads: “Clinicians should recommend active surveillance as the preferable care option for most low-risk localized prostate cancer patients (Moderate Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade B)
 

Patients protest change in wording

Not surprisingly, the revised NCCN guidance was criticized by multiple patient advocacy groups, including Active Surveillance Patients International (ASPI), which wrote a letter to the NCCN protesting the change.

In that letter, the ASPI writes that active surveillance is now chosen as the initial approach for low-risk prostate cancer in about 90% of cases in some European nations, and in about 50% of cases in the United States. It also warns that eliminating the word “preferred” from the NCCN guidelines represents a retreat, and “will have repercussions far beyond what we may first conceive.” 

“Active surveillance should be the preferred choice to preserve quality of life for men with low-risk cancer,” the advocacy group states. “The PIVOT trials indicate for low-risk disease there is basically no advantage to intervention. Why would one risk the side effects if they knew that?”
 

Why now?

The NCCN’s move to alter its low-risk prostate cancer guidance is especially striking because, 11 years ago, the NCCN broke new ground in recommending active surveillance as the sole initial treatment option for low-risk men. (It was also the first guidelines group to recommend the same for very low-risk men.)

So why the change now? This news organization requested, but did not receive,  comment from the NCCN and its chair of the prostate cancer panel, Edward Schaeffer, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago.  

However, on Twitter, Dr. Schaeffer hinted at what had turned the tables for the NCCN panel – the risk that, over time, some men with low-risk disease who are on active surveillance are reclassified on biopsy as having a higher risk.

He highlighted a 2020 study on that very subject from the University of California, San Francisco, published in the Journal of Urology. Those authors concluded that: “Given the heterogeneity of the disease, some tumors characterized as low risk may merit early treatment while others may be followed much less intensely over some time interval.”

Dr. Schaeffer tweeted: “I think this nicely sums up the low-risk space ...”

Experts reacting to Dr. Schaeffer’s tweet were not swayed.

Looking at additional measures such as genomic scores and PSA density, as advocated by Dr. Schaeffer via the posted 2020 study, is good for assessing individual risk, “but still, active surveillance is the preferred option for low risk,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Chapin.

UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg, who was a co-author on that 2020 Journal of Urology paper,  commented that the university’s urology department had “spent the past quarter century arguing active surveillance is ‘preferred’ for almost all low risk [disease]!”

“Many on active surveillance need treatment someday, but that does not justify immediate overtreatment,” he concluded.

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

For over a decade, the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has been recommending that men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option.

But the NCCN has now reversed this long-standing recommendation in the latest revision of its prostate cancer guideline.

The organization now recommends that low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance or radiation therapy or surgery, with equal weight given to all three of these initial options.

The change is seen by some as a retreat to the past and was harshly criticized by many experts on Twitter. The complaints were voiced in unusually blunt and strong language for physicians.

“This is a terrible step back that impacts every urologist,” commented John Griffith, MD, of Hartford Healthcare, who practices in New Britain, Conn.

Dr. Griffith explained that he prints out the NCCN guidance with “every patient newly diagnosed” and that the preferred designation is a “huge help” in reassuring them about not treating low-risk disease initially.

In a Twitter thread, Benjamin Davies, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, facetiously wondered if a time warp was at play: “To suggest for a millisecond that active surveillance isn’t the preferred method for low-risk men is bizarre thinking ... Is this 1980?”

“I’m baffled,” said Brian Chapin, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in another Twitter thread.

“This is ludicrous,” said Andrew Vickers, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in a tweet.

Alexander Kutikov, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, commented on Twitter that the change “seems off the rails…a bit stunned by this.”

Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and Minhaj Siddiqui, MD, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore both called the move a “step backward.”

Many others also expressed disappointment in the NCCN, whose guidelines are hugely influential because of the role they play clinically as well as with payors and the legal system.

“A huge setback & frankly a disgrace for @NCCN and its processes,” commented Fox Chase’s Dr. Kutikov.

Stacy Loeb, MD, of NYU Langone Health in New York City, suggested the new guidance may stunt use of active surveillance in the United States. She tweeted: “The updated NCCN guideline certainly won’t help the lagging and heterogenous uptake of active surveillance in the U.S. We should be carefully expanding the pool for active surveillance, not narrowing it.”

The purpose of active surveillance is to avoid adverse events from treatment, which can be life-changing as they include incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

The rationale is that many men with low-risk prostate cancer may not need treatment for their disease, as the disease may be slow-growing and may never threaten their life. With active surveillance, men are instead monitored with blood tests, scans, and biopsies to watch for worsening disease, and treated only when there are signs of disease progression.

This active surveillance approach has grown in acceptance among American patients since 2010.

The concern now is that the change in guidance from the NCCN will lead to a reduction in active surveillance, and an increase in initial treatment with surgery and radiotherapy for low-risk disease, which is considered by many to be “overtreatment’ of this disease and may not be medically necessary.  

For example, UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg said he feared that the changed guidance “will be used by urologists and radiation oncologists to justify overtreatment of low-risk disease.”

Dr. Kutikov agreed but described that possibility differently, citing the risk of lawsuits. He observed that without the NCCN’s “medico-legal buffer” of active surveillance as the preferred initial treatment, there are “further incentives” for overtreatment.

The new NCCN guidance also conflicts with the American Urological Association’s guidelines and dissolves what was once a mostly united front from the two major organizations on active surveillance and low-risk disease.

The AUA Guideline reads: “Clinicians should recommend active surveillance as the preferable care option for most low-risk localized prostate cancer patients (Moderate Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade B)
 

Patients protest change in wording

Not surprisingly, the revised NCCN guidance was criticized by multiple patient advocacy groups, including Active Surveillance Patients International (ASPI), which wrote a letter to the NCCN protesting the change.

In that letter, the ASPI writes that active surveillance is now chosen as the initial approach for low-risk prostate cancer in about 90% of cases in some European nations, and in about 50% of cases in the United States. It also warns that eliminating the word “preferred” from the NCCN guidelines represents a retreat, and “will have repercussions far beyond what we may first conceive.” 

“Active surveillance should be the preferred choice to preserve quality of life for men with low-risk cancer,” the advocacy group states. “The PIVOT trials indicate for low-risk disease there is basically no advantage to intervention. Why would one risk the side effects if they knew that?”
 

Why now?

The NCCN’s move to alter its low-risk prostate cancer guidance is especially striking because, 11 years ago, the NCCN broke new ground in recommending active surveillance as the sole initial treatment option for low-risk men. (It was also the first guidelines group to recommend the same for very low-risk men.)

So why the change now? This news organization requested, but did not receive,  comment from the NCCN and its chair of the prostate cancer panel, Edward Schaeffer, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago.  

However, on Twitter, Dr. Schaeffer hinted at what had turned the tables for the NCCN panel – the risk that, over time, some men with low-risk disease who are on active surveillance are reclassified on biopsy as having a higher risk.

He highlighted a 2020 study on that very subject from the University of California, San Francisco, published in the Journal of Urology. Those authors concluded that: “Given the heterogeneity of the disease, some tumors characterized as low risk may merit early treatment while others may be followed much less intensely over some time interval.”

Dr. Schaeffer tweeted: “I think this nicely sums up the low-risk space ...”

Experts reacting to Dr. Schaeffer’s tweet were not swayed.

Looking at additional measures such as genomic scores and PSA density, as advocated by Dr. Schaeffer via the posted 2020 study, is good for assessing individual risk, “but still, active surveillance is the preferred option for low risk,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Chapin.

UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg, who was a co-author on that 2020 Journal of Urology paper,  commented that the university’s urology department had “spent the past quarter century arguing active surveillance is ‘preferred’ for almost all low risk [disease]!”

“Many on active surveillance need treatment someday, but that does not justify immediate overtreatment,” he concluded.

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

For over a decade, the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has been recommending that men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option.

But the NCCN has now reversed this long-standing recommendation in the latest revision of its prostate cancer guideline.

The organization now recommends that low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance or radiation therapy or surgery, with equal weight given to all three of these initial options.

The change is seen by some as a retreat to the past and was harshly criticized by many experts on Twitter. The complaints were voiced in unusually blunt and strong language for physicians.

“This is a terrible step back that impacts every urologist,” commented John Griffith, MD, of Hartford Healthcare, who practices in New Britain, Conn.

Dr. Griffith explained that he prints out the NCCN guidance with “every patient newly diagnosed” and that the preferred designation is a “huge help” in reassuring them about not treating low-risk disease initially.

In a Twitter thread, Benjamin Davies, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, facetiously wondered if a time warp was at play: “To suggest for a millisecond that active surveillance isn’t the preferred method for low-risk men is bizarre thinking ... Is this 1980?”

“I’m baffled,” said Brian Chapin, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in another Twitter thread.

“This is ludicrous,” said Andrew Vickers, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in a tweet.

Alexander Kutikov, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, commented on Twitter that the change “seems off the rails…a bit stunned by this.”

Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and Minhaj Siddiqui, MD, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore both called the move a “step backward.”

Many others also expressed disappointment in the NCCN, whose guidelines are hugely influential because of the role they play clinically as well as with payors and the legal system.

“A huge setback & frankly a disgrace for @NCCN and its processes,” commented Fox Chase’s Dr. Kutikov.

Stacy Loeb, MD, of NYU Langone Health in New York City, suggested the new guidance may stunt use of active surveillance in the United States. She tweeted: “The updated NCCN guideline certainly won’t help the lagging and heterogenous uptake of active surveillance in the U.S. We should be carefully expanding the pool for active surveillance, not narrowing it.”

The purpose of active surveillance is to avoid adverse events from treatment, which can be life-changing as they include incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

The rationale is that many men with low-risk prostate cancer may not need treatment for their disease, as the disease may be slow-growing and may never threaten their life. With active surveillance, men are instead monitored with blood tests, scans, and biopsies to watch for worsening disease, and treated only when there are signs of disease progression.

This active surveillance approach has grown in acceptance among American patients since 2010.

The concern now is that the change in guidance from the NCCN will lead to a reduction in active surveillance, and an increase in initial treatment with surgery and radiotherapy for low-risk disease, which is considered by many to be “overtreatment’ of this disease and may not be medically necessary.  

For example, UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg said he feared that the changed guidance “will be used by urologists and radiation oncologists to justify overtreatment of low-risk disease.”

Dr. Kutikov agreed but described that possibility differently, citing the risk of lawsuits. He observed that without the NCCN’s “medico-legal buffer” of active surveillance as the preferred initial treatment, there are “further incentives” for overtreatment.

The new NCCN guidance also conflicts with the American Urological Association’s guidelines and dissolves what was once a mostly united front from the two major organizations on active surveillance and low-risk disease.

The AUA Guideline reads: “Clinicians should recommend active surveillance as the preferable care option for most low-risk localized prostate cancer patients (Moderate Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade B)
 

Patients protest change in wording

Not surprisingly, the revised NCCN guidance was criticized by multiple patient advocacy groups, including Active Surveillance Patients International (ASPI), which wrote a letter to the NCCN protesting the change.

In that letter, the ASPI writes that active surveillance is now chosen as the initial approach for low-risk prostate cancer in about 90% of cases in some European nations, and in about 50% of cases in the United States. It also warns that eliminating the word “preferred” from the NCCN guidelines represents a retreat, and “will have repercussions far beyond what we may first conceive.” 

“Active surveillance should be the preferred choice to preserve quality of life for men with low-risk cancer,” the advocacy group states. “The PIVOT trials indicate for low-risk disease there is basically no advantage to intervention. Why would one risk the side effects if they knew that?”
 

Why now?

The NCCN’s move to alter its low-risk prostate cancer guidance is especially striking because, 11 years ago, the NCCN broke new ground in recommending active surveillance as the sole initial treatment option for low-risk men. (It was also the first guidelines group to recommend the same for very low-risk men.)

So why the change now? This news organization requested, but did not receive,  comment from the NCCN and its chair of the prostate cancer panel, Edward Schaeffer, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago.  

However, on Twitter, Dr. Schaeffer hinted at what had turned the tables for the NCCN panel – the risk that, over time, some men with low-risk disease who are on active surveillance are reclassified on biopsy as having a higher risk.

He highlighted a 2020 study on that very subject from the University of California, San Francisco, published in the Journal of Urology. Those authors concluded that: “Given the heterogeneity of the disease, some tumors characterized as low risk may merit early treatment while others may be followed much less intensely over some time interval.”

Dr. Schaeffer tweeted: “I think this nicely sums up the low-risk space ...”

Experts reacting to Dr. Schaeffer’s tweet were not swayed.

Looking at additional measures such as genomic scores and PSA density, as advocated by Dr. Schaeffer via the posted 2020 study, is good for assessing individual risk, “but still, active surveillance is the preferred option for low risk,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Chapin.

UCSF’s Dr. Cooperberg, who was a co-author on that 2020 Journal of Urology paper,  commented that the university’s urology department had “spent the past quarter century arguing active surveillance is ‘preferred’ for almost all low risk [disease]!”

“Many on active surveillance need treatment someday, but that does not justify immediate overtreatment,” he concluded.

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

Extended follow-up of the PRAGUE-17 trial suggests left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains noninferior to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with regard to major cardiovascular and neurologic events in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation.

At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the annualized rate of the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, clinically relevant bleeding, or significant procedure- or device-related complications – was 8.6% in patients who underwent LAAC and 11.9% in those managed with DOACs (P value for noninferiority = .006).

The study was not powered to assess the individual components, but most were similar between the LAAC and DOAC groups, including cardiovascular death (20 vs. 30 events) and all stroke/TIA (16 vs. 18 events).

Nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding was lower with LAAC (23 vs. 40 events; annualized rate, 3.4% vs. 5.9%; P = .039), said Pavel Osmancik, MD, PhD, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, both in Prague.

The data were presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando and sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and was published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The results are generally in line with those reported in 2020 with an average follow-up of 20 months, when the annualized primary event rate was 11% with LAAC and 13% with DOACs, also known as novel OACs (NOACs).

The trial randomly assigned 415 patients to LAAC with the Amulet (Abbott Vascular) or Watchman/Watchman FLX devices (Boston Scientific) or to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or preferably apixaban (96%). The modified intention-to-treat analysis included 201 patients in each group, with follow-up extending to 4.3 years in the LAAC group and 4.2 years in the DOAC group.

Dr. Osmancik said the trial enrolled a very-high-risk atrial fibrillation cohort, citing a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.7 in both groups and a HAS-BLED score of 3.0-3.1. More than half of the LAAC group (54.2%) and 47.3% of the DOAC group had a history of bleeding or bleeding predisposition.

During a discussion of the results, the panel questioned whether the continuing divergence of the primary event curves at 4 years was potentially related to the effect of noncompliance to the NOACs over time.

Dr. Osmancik replied: “We didn’t do any medication look among the patients, but I don’t think that the number of patients who stopped the NOAC treatment was too high because the rate of strokes was very similar to that in the NOAC trials.”

He reported that 26 patients in the DOAC group permanently stopped their DOAC during follow-up; 15 (58%) because of clinically relevant bleeding, and 13 crossed over to LAAC. Of the 13 patients, 12 cases were successful with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months.

In the LAAC group, 17 patients started a DOAC during follow-up. Of these, three (18%) initiated DOAC treatment because of device-related thrombus (DRT) on transesophageal echocardiography, three (18%) because of a peridevice leak (PDL), and five (29%) because of a stroke/TIA.

“Given the observed trend of significantly increased nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding in the NOAC arm, it is likely that late bleeding events will increasingly favor LAAC over time,” Faisal Merchant, MD, Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

NOACs, he noted, have important indications beyond prevention of left atrial appendage thrombi, including prevention of non-LAA sources of stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and treatment of venous thromboembolism. “If significant numbers of patients treated with LAAC end up on anticoagulation in the long run, the benefits of LAAC are likely to be attenuated.”

Although PRAGUE-17 provides some insights into the longer-term indications for resuming anticoagulation in patients previously treated with LAAC, Dr. Merchant said the trial is a “real missed opportunity” in terms of understanding late device-associated risks. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the follow-up transesophageal echocardiograms were canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Although the incidence of late DRT and PDL isn’t known, the longer-term PRAGUE-17 data are helpful in demonstrating that rates of SSE remain similar in the LAAC and NOAC groups over time, without any obvious signal of late ischemic events in the LAAC group,” he wrote.

The editorialist also called attention to the “often overlooked” issue of aspirin adherence in long-term medical therapy. Although patients treated with LAAC typically remain on aspirin indefinitely, the percentage who discontinue long-term aspirin is not well described and is not reported in PRAGUE-17. In the AVERROES trial, comparing aspirin with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation, however, 20.5% of patients permanently discontinued aspirin at 2 years, compared with only 17.9% on apixaban.

“It is plausible that discontinuation of aspirin may contribute to late ischemic events in patients treated with LAAC, potentially by increasing the risk of late DRT or through other mechanisms,” Dr. Merchant wrote. “Adherence to, and the impact of, long-term antiplatelet therapy should be a focus of future LAAC studies.”

The study was funded by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. Dr. Osmancik reported occasional speaking honoraria from Bayer and Abbott. Dr. Merchant disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Extended follow-up of the PRAGUE-17 trial suggests left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains noninferior to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with regard to major cardiovascular and neurologic events in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation.

At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the annualized rate of the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, clinically relevant bleeding, or significant procedure- or device-related complications – was 8.6% in patients who underwent LAAC and 11.9% in those managed with DOACs (P value for noninferiority = .006).

The study was not powered to assess the individual components, but most were similar between the LAAC and DOAC groups, including cardiovascular death (20 vs. 30 events) and all stroke/TIA (16 vs. 18 events).

Nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding was lower with LAAC (23 vs. 40 events; annualized rate, 3.4% vs. 5.9%; P = .039), said Pavel Osmancik, MD, PhD, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, both in Prague.

The data were presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando and sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and was published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The results are generally in line with those reported in 2020 with an average follow-up of 20 months, when the annualized primary event rate was 11% with LAAC and 13% with DOACs, also known as novel OACs (NOACs).

The trial randomly assigned 415 patients to LAAC with the Amulet (Abbott Vascular) or Watchman/Watchman FLX devices (Boston Scientific) or to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or preferably apixaban (96%). The modified intention-to-treat analysis included 201 patients in each group, with follow-up extending to 4.3 years in the LAAC group and 4.2 years in the DOAC group.

Dr. Osmancik said the trial enrolled a very-high-risk atrial fibrillation cohort, citing a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.7 in both groups and a HAS-BLED score of 3.0-3.1. More than half of the LAAC group (54.2%) and 47.3% of the DOAC group had a history of bleeding or bleeding predisposition.

During a discussion of the results, the panel questioned whether the continuing divergence of the primary event curves at 4 years was potentially related to the effect of noncompliance to the NOACs over time.

Dr. Osmancik replied: “We didn’t do any medication look among the patients, but I don’t think that the number of patients who stopped the NOAC treatment was too high because the rate of strokes was very similar to that in the NOAC trials.”

He reported that 26 patients in the DOAC group permanently stopped their DOAC during follow-up; 15 (58%) because of clinically relevant bleeding, and 13 crossed over to LAAC. Of the 13 patients, 12 cases were successful with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months.

In the LAAC group, 17 patients started a DOAC during follow-up. Of these, three (18%) initiated DOAC treatment because of device-related thrombus (DRT) on transesophageal echocardiography, three (18%) because of a peridevice leak (PDL), and five (29%) because of a stroke/TIA.

“Given the observed trend of significantly increased nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding in the NOAC arm, it is likely that late bleeding events will increasingly favor LAAC over time,” Faisal Merchant, MD, Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

NOACs, he noted, have important indications beyond prevention of left atrial appendage thrombi, including prevention of non-LAA sources of stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and treatment of venous thromboembolism. “If significant numbers of patients treated with LAAC end up on anticoagulation in the long run, the benefits of LAAC are likely to be attenuated.”

Although PRAGUE-17 provides some insights into the longer-term indications for resuming anticoagulation in patients previously treated with LAAC, Dr. Merchant said the trial is a “real missed opportunity” in terms of understanding late device-associated risks. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the follow-up transesophageal echocardiograms were canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Although the incidence of late DRT and PDL isn’t known, the longer-term PRAGUE-17 data are helpful in demonstrating that rates of SSE remain similar in the LAAC and NOAC groups over time, without any obvious signal of late ischemic events in the LAAC group,” he wrote.

The editorialist also called attention to the “often overlooked” issue of aspirin adherence in long-term medical therapy. Although patients treated with LAAC typically remain on aspirin indefinitely, the percentage who discontinue long-term aspirin is not well described and is not reported in PRAGUE-17. In the AVERROES trial, comparing aspirin with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation, however, 20.5% of patients permanently discontinued aspirin at 2 years, compared with only 17.9% on apixaban.

“It is plausible that discontinuation of aspirin may contribute to late ischemic events in patients treated with LAAC, potentially by increasing the risk of late DRT or through other mechanisms,” Dr. Merchant wrote. “Adherence to, and the impact of, long-term antiplatelet therapy should be a focus of future LAAC studies.”

The study was funded by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. Dr. Osmancik reported occasional speaking honoraria from Bayer and Abbott. Dr. Merchant disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Extended follow-up of the PRAGUE-17 trial suggests left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains noninferior to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with regard to major cardiovascular and neurologic events in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation.

At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the annualized rate of the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, clinically relevant bleeding, or significant procedure- or device-related complications – was 8.6% in patients who underwent LAAC and 11.9% in those managed with DOACs (P value for noninferiority = .006).

The study was not powered to assess the individual components, but most were similar between the LAAC and DOAC groups, including cardiovascular death (20 vs. 30 events) and all stroke/TIA (16 vs. 18 events).

Nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding was lower with LAAC (23 vs. 40 events; annualized rate, 3.4% vs. 5.9%; P = .039), said Pavel Osmancik, MD, PhD, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, both in Prague.

The data were presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando and sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and was published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The results are generally in line with those reported in 2020 with an average follow-up of 20 months, when the annualized primary event rate was 11% with LAAC and 13% with DOACs, also known as novel OACs (NOACs).

The trial randomly assigned 415 patients to LAAC with the Amulet (Abbott Vascular) or Watchman/Watchman FLX devices (Boston Scientific) or to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or preferably apixaban (96%). The modified intention-to-treat analysis included 201 patients in each group, with follow-up extending to 4.3 years in the LAAC group and 4.2 years in the DOAC group.

Dr. Osmancik said the trial enrolled a very-high-risk atrial fibrillation cohort, citing a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.7 in both groups and a HAS-BLED score of 3.0-3.1. More than half of the LAAC group (54.2%) and 47.3% of the DOAC group had a history of bleeding or bleeding predisposition.

During a discussion of the results, the panel questioned whether the continuing divergence of the primary event curves at 4 years was potentially related to the effect of noncompliance to the NOACs over time.

Dr. Osmancik replied: “We didn’t do any medication look among the patients, but I don’t think that the number of patients who stopped the NOAC treatment was too high because the rate of strokes was very similar to that in the NOAC trials.”

He reported that 26 patients in the DOAC group permanently stopped their DOAC during follow-up; 15 (58%) because of clinically relevant bleeding, and 13 crossed over to LAAC. Of the 13 patients, 12 cases were successful with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months.

In the LAAC group, 17 patients started a DOAC during follow-up. Of these, three (18%) initiated DOAC treatment because of device-related thrombus (DRT) on transesophageal echocardiography, three (18%) because of a peridevice leak (PDL), and five (29%) because of a stroke/TIA.

“Given the observed trend of significantly increased nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding in the NOAC arm, it is likely that late bleeding events will increasingly favor LAAC over time,” Faisal Merchant, MD, Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

NOACs, he noted, have important indications beyond prevention of left atrial appendage thrombi, including prevention of non-LAA sources of stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and treatment of venous thromboembolism. “If significant numbers of patients treated with LAAC end up on anticoagulation in the long run, the benefits of LAAC are likely to be attenuated.”

Although PRAGUE-17 provides some insights into the longer-term indications for resuming anticoagulation in patients previously treated with LAAC, Dr. Merchant said the trial is a “real missed opportunity” in terms of understanding late device-associated risks. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the follow-up transesophageal echocardiograms were canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Although the incidence of late DRT and PDL isn’t known, the longer-term PRAGUE-17 data are helpful in demonstrating that rates of SSE remain similar in the LAAC and NOAC groups over time, without any obvious signal of late ischemic events in the LAAC group,” he wrote.

The editorialist also called attention to the “often overlooked” issue of aspirin adherence in long-term medical therapy. Although patients treated with LAAC typically remain on aspirin indefinitely, the percentage who discontinue long-term aspirin is not well described and is not reported in PRAGUE-17. In the AVERROES trial, comparing aspirin with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation, however, 20.5% of patients permanently discontinued aspirin at 2 years, compared with only 17.9% on apixaban.

“It is plausible that discontinuation of aspirin may contribute to late ischemic events in patients treated with LAAC, potentially by increasing the risk of late DRT or through other mechanisms,” Dr. Merchant wrote. “Adherence to, and the impact of, long-term antiplatelet therapy should be a focus of future LAAC studies.”

The study was funded by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. Dr. Osmancik reported occasional speaking honoraria from Bayer and Abbott. Dr. Merchant disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: Although troponin is the preferred biomarker to indicate acute myocardial infarction, little is known about the implications of elevated troponin in the absence of plaque rupture.

Dr. Bhasin is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, all in Chicago.

Background: Although troponin is the preferred biomarker to indicate acute myocardial infarction, little is known about the implications of elevated troponin in the absence of plaque rupture.

Dr. Bhasin is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, all in Chicago.

Background: Although troponin is the preferred biomarker to indicate acute myocardial infarction, little is known about the implications of elevated troponin in the absence of plaque rupture.

Dr. Bhasin is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, all in Chicago.

On day 1 of her fellowship, Francesca C. Duncan, MD, was blindsided by her first patient.

The patient, a White man who was accompanied by his wife, sat in the exam room with his sunglasses on.

“I remember him saying, ‘I need to take off my sunglasses so you don’t look so Black,’” said Dr. Duncan, a pulmonologist and intensivist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, who has a specialty in lung cancer disparities.

The patient proceeded to grill her about her experience and training. He asked where she attended college and mocked her degree from a historically Black university. His wife sat there, silent.

Dr. Duncan was shocked by the fact that she still had to defend her credentials.

“I just kind of felt like at that point in my training, my title would have earned me more respect,” said Dr. Duncan, now an assistant professor after recently completing a 3-year fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine. “I thought at some point [the racism and discrimination] would stop, but after all that training, all that late-night studying, I still had to prove myself.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Duncan’s experience in fellowship is not unique.

A recent survey of hematology and oncology fellows revealed that medical trainees routinely encounter discrimination during their training.

The 17 fellows who were anonymously interviewed in the survey all recalled experiencing or witnessing discriminatory behaviors during their fellowship, mostly from patients. These encounters rarely come to light. Only one respondent officially reported an incident.

The findings, published online November 8 in JAMA Network Open, underscore the need for graduate medical education programs to improve learning environments and support for trainees, lead author Rahma M. Warsame, MD, and colleagues say .
 

Discrimination at work

Initially, Dr. Warsame and co–principal investigator Katharine Price, MD, were tasked with developing strategies to mitigate instances of racism and bias that fellows encountered during training, but both felt it was critical to understand the experiences of their trainees first.

Out of 34 fellows and recent graduates of the hematology and oncology fellowship program of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., 20 consented to participate in the study. Of those, 17 were interviewed between July and November 2018. Among the 17 interviewees, six were Asian, two were Black, three were Hispanic, two were multiracial, and four were White.

Dr. Warsame and colleagues found that everyone reported experiencing or witnessing biased or discriminatory events. The majority of these offenses were committed by patients, not faculty or other employees. The researchers largely interpreted most of the incidents as microaggressions.

From the interviews, the researchers identified six central themes. Among them: foreign fellows and U.S.-born trainees being perceived or made to feel like outsiders; inappropriate comments being made toward female employees about their looks, credentials, or marital status; lack of action after reporting incidents or concerns that reporting such incidents would be futile; and strategies fellows used to cope after negative interactions.

One interviewee said, “I was fired by a patient because I have an accent.” Another said that when she is interviewing for jobs, she is always asked if she has children: “Maybe they’re asking in an innocuous manner, but I always feel like people worry. Is this person going to take maternity leave and be less available for work?”

For Dr. Warsame, “the idea that American citizens were frequently made to feel like they do not belong was surprising.”

Not surprising to Dr. Warsame, however, was the importance of fostering diversity and inclusion during fellowship years. Fellows often noted that greater diversity within the program helped create a more inclusive environment.

“[What’s] important to reinforce is the value of creating platforms for honest discussion and intentionally seeking fellows’ voices and perspectives, which in turn makes them feel like they belong,” Dr. Warsame said.

Still, the researchers found that fellows often did not report incidents of discrimination or bias. Only six trainees were aware of policies for reporting patient misconduct or discrimination, and only one ever reported an incident.
 

Where’s the support?

For Dr. Duncan, her encounter 3 years ago with the patient with sunglasses wasn’t her first experience of discrimination on the job — or her last.

Although hurtful in the moment, she had the wherewithal to report the incident to her attending physician, who was equally shocked. Initially unsure of how to handle it, the attending ultimately stepped up and provided “immense support,” Dr. Duncan said

The issue was brought to the attention of the program director, who took swift action. The patient was documented as “disruptive,” informed of that status in writing, and was banned from receiving treatment from trainees at the center, although Dr. Duncan noted he still received the medical care he needed.

Often, however, fellows who report incidents of discrimination and racism receive little support. According to Dr. Warsame and colleagues, most trainees don’t bother reporting these experiences because they believe that doing so would be futile.

“Concerns about reporting included jeopardizing future employability, risk of retaliation, and challenges reporting experiences that could be perceived as subjective and difficult to prove,” the authors write.

For instance, one interviewee said: “I’m afraid to report these things because there’s gonna be repercussions. There’s no way it’s gonna be anonymous.... I just have to toughen up and, you know, get used [to it].”

Dr. Warsame added, “A major challenge for trainees was that they often felt unheard, and at the time, there was no formal debrief regarding discrimination issues when they arose.”

These instances of bias have implications for trainee well-being. In a 2019 study, discrimination that physicians and students experienced during training had adverse effects on their emotional health. Responses from 50 trainees and physicians revealed a wide range of discriminatory experiences, including patients rejecting care and spewing racist, sexist, or homophobic epithets. Many physicians were uncertain about how to respond effectively and appropriately.

Since that study was published and after having completed her own fellowship, Dr. Duncan said she has seen some change for the better.

“There is a lot more awareness around this, and programs are trying to do better in recognizing and responding to incidents,” she said. She noted that it’s important to ensure that those who are directly affected by discriminatory behaviors aren’t left to do all of the “heavy lifting” of addressing and resolving the issues.

The weight of discriminatory incidents, from microaggressions to overt racism, is cumulative and can adversely affect a person’s career. “It’s exhausting -- we need support,” she said.

The Mayo Clinic is working to ensure that trainees receive support. “The study has prompted communication workshops and faculty development to better equip trainees with strategies to address [and report] patients who behave or display disrespectful or discriminatory behavior,” Dr. Warsame said.

She and her colleagues noted that the anonymous hotline used for the survey cultivated a safe environment for candid discussions and that such an approach is “feasible and effective to explore sensitive topics and scalable to various geographic locations and different medical specialties.”

“We recognize that our program must seek this feedback regularly and ensure we keep a finger on the pulse of our trainees,” Dr. Warsame added.

Dr. Warsame and Dr. Duncan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Duncan noted that her views and comments are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her institution.

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

On day 1 of her fellowship, Francesca C. Duncan, MD, was blindsided by her first patient.

The patient, a White man who was accompanied by his wife, sat in the exam room with his sunglasses on.

“I remember him saying, ‘I need to take off my sunglasses so you don’t look so Black,’” said Dr. Duncan, a pulmonologist and intensivist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, who has a specialty in lung cancer disparities.

The patient proceeded to grill her about her experience and training. He asked where she attended college and mocked her degree from a historically Black university. His wife sat there, silent.

Dr. Duncan was shocked by the fact that she still had to defend her credentials.

“I just kind of felt like at that point in my training, my title would have earned me more respect,” said Dr. Duncan, now an assistant professor after recently completing a 3-year fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine. “I thought at some point [the racism and discrimination] would stop, but after all that training, all that late-night studying, I still had to prove myself.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Duncan’s experience in fellowship is not unique.

A recent survey of hematology and oncology fellows revealed that medical trainees routinely encounter discrimination during their training.

The 17 fellows who were anonymously interviewed in the survey all recalled experiencing or witnessing discriminatory behaviors during their fellowship, mostly from patients. These encounters rarely come to light. Only one respondent officially reported an incident.

The findings, published online November 8 in JAMA Network Open, underscore the need for graduate medical education programs to improve learning environments and support for trainees, lead author Rahma M. Warsame, MD, and colleagues say .
 

Discrimination at work

Initially, Dr. Warsame and co–principal investigator Katharine Price, MD, were tasked with developing strategies to mitigate instances of racism and bias that fellows encountered during training, but both felt it was critical to understand the experiences of their trainees first.

Out of 34 fellows and recent graduates of the hematology and oncology fellowship program of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., 20 consented to participate in the study. Of those, 17 were interviewed between July and November 2018. Among the 17 interviewees, six were Asian, two were Black, three were Hispanic, two were multiracial, and four were White.

Dr. Warsame and colleagues found that everyone reported experiencing or witnessing biased or discriminatory events. The majority of these offenses were committed by patients, not faculty or other employees. The researchers largely interpreted most of the incidents as microaggressions.

From the interviews, the researchers identified six central themes. Among them: foreign fellows and U.S.-born trainees being perceived or made to feel like outsiders; inappropriate comments being made toward female employees about their looks, credentials, or marital status; lack of action after reporting incidents or concerns that reporting such incidents would be futile; and strategies fellows used to cope after negative interactions.

One interviewee said, “I was fired by a patient because I have an accent.” Another said that when she is interviewing for jobs, she is always asked if she has children: “Maybe they’re asking in an innocuous manner, but I always feel like people worry. Is this person going to take maternity leave and be less available for work?”

For Dr. Warsame, “the idea that American citizens were frequently made to feel like they do not belong was surprising.”

Not surprising to Dr. Warsame, however, was the importance of fostering diversity and inclusion during fellowship years. Fellows often noted that greater diversity within the program helped create a more inclusive environment.

“[What’s] important to reinforce is the value of creating platforms for honest discussion and intentionally seeking fellows’ voices and perspectives, which in turn makes them feel like they belong,” Dr. Warsame said.

Still, the researchers found that fellows often did not report incidents of discrimination or bias. Only six trainees were aware of policies for reporting patient misconduct or discrimination, and only one ever reported an incident.
 

Where’s the support?

For Dr. Duncan, her encounter 3 years ago with the patient with sunglasses wasn’t her first experience of discrimination on the job — or her last.

Although hurtful in the moment, she had the wherewithal to report the incident to her attending physician, who was equally shocked. Initially unsure of how to handle it, the attending ultimately stepped up and provided “immense support,” Dr. Duncan said

The issue was brought to the attention of the program director, who took swift action. The patient was documented as “disruptive,” informed of that status in writing, and was banned from receiving treatment from trainees at the center, although Dr. Duncan noted he still received the medical care he needed.

Often, however, fellows who report incidents of discrimination and racism receive little support. According to Dr. Warsame and colleagues, most trainees don’t bother reporting these experiences because they believe that doing so would be futile.

“Concerns about reporting included jeopardizing future employability, risk of retaliation, and challenges reporting experiences that could be perceived as subjective and difficult to prove,” the authors write.

For instance, one interviewee said: “I’m afraid to report these things because there’s gonna be repercussions. There’s no way it’s gonna be anonymous.... I just have to toughen up and, you know, get used [to it].”

Dr. Warsame added, “A major challenge for trainees was that they often felt unheard, and at the time, there was no formal debrief regarding discrimination issues when they arose.”

These instances of bias have implications for trainee well-being. In a 2019 study, discrimination that physicians and students experienced during training had adverse effects on their emotional health. Responses from 50 trainees and physicians revealed a wide range of discriminatory experiences, including patients rejecting care and spewing racist, sexist, or homophobic epithets. Many physicians were uncertain about how to respond effectively and appropriately.

Since that study was published and after having completed her own fellowship, Dr. Duncan said she has seen some change for the better.

“There is a lot more awareness around this, and programs are trying to do better in recognizing and responding to incidents,” she said. She noted that it’s important to ensure that those who are directly affected by discriminatory behaviors aren’t left to do all of the “heavy lifting” of addressing and resolving the issues.

The weight of discriminatory incidents, from microaggressions to overt racism, is cumulative and can adversely affect a person’s career. “It’s exhausting -- we need support,” she said.

The Mayo Clinic is working to ensure that trainees receive support. “The study has prompted communication workshops and faculty development to better equip trainees with strategies to address [and report] patients who behave or display disrespectful or discriminatory behavior,” Dr. Warsame said.

She and her colleagues noted that the anonymous hotline used for the survey cultivated a safe environment for candid discussions and that such an approach is “feasible and effective to explore sensitive topics and scalable to various geographic locations and different medical specialties.”

“We recognize that our program must seek this feedback regularly and ensure we keep a finger on the pulse of our trainees,” Dr. Warsame added.

Dr. Warsame and Dr. Duncan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Duncan noted that her views and comments are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her institution.

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

On day 1 of her fellowship, Francesca C. Duncan, MD, was blindsided by her first patient.

The patient, a White man who was accompanied by his wife, sat in the exam room with his sunglasses on.

“I remember him saying, ‘I need to take off my sunglasses so you don’t look so Black,’” said Dr. Duncan, a pulmonologist and intensivist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, who has a specialty in lung cancer disparities.

The patient proceeded to grill her about her experience and training. He asked where she attended college and mocked her degree from a historically Black university. His wife sat there, silent.

Dr. Duncan was shocked by the fact that she still had to defend her credentials.

“I just kind of felt like at that point in my training, my title would have earned me more respect,” said Dr. Duncan, now an assistant professor after recently completing a 3-year fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine. “I thought at some point [the racism and discrimination] would stop, but after all that training, all that late-night studying, I still had to prove myself.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Duncan’s experience in fellowship is not unique.

A recent survey of hematology and oncology fellows revealed that medical trainees routinely encounter discrimination during their training.

The 17 fellows who were anonymously interviewed in the survey all recalled experiencing or witnessing discriminatory behaviors during their fellowship, mostly from patients. These encounters rarely come to light. Only one respondent officially reported an incident.

The findings, published online November 8 in JAMA Network Open, underscore the need for graduate medical education programs to improve learning environments and support for trainees, lead author Rahma M. Warsame, MD, and colleagues say .
 

Discrimination at work

Initially, Dr. Warsame and co–principal investigator Katharine Price, MD, were tasked with developing strategies to mitigate instances of racism and bias that fellows encountered during training, but both felt it was critical to understand the experiences of their trainees first.

Out of 34 fellows and recent graduates of the hematology and oncology fellowship program of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., 20 consented to participate in the study. Of those, 17 were interviewed between July and November 2018. Among the 17 interviewees, six were Asian, two were Black, three were Hispanic, two were multiracial, and four were White.

Dr. Warsame and colleagues found that everyone reported experiencing or witnessing biased or discriminatory events. The majority of these offenses were committed by patients, not faculty or other employees. The researchers largely interpreted most of the incidents as microaggressions.

From the interviews, the researchers identified six central themes. Among them: foreign fellows and U.S.-born trainees being perceived or made to feel like outsiders; inappropriate comments being made toward female employees about their looks, credentials, or marital status; lack of action after reporting incidents or concerns that reporting such incidents would be futile; and strategies fellows used to cope after negative interactions.

One interviewee said, “I was fired by a patient because I have an accent.” Another said that when she is interviewing for jobs, she is always asked if she has children: “Maybe they’re asking in an innocuous manner, but I always feel like people worry. Is this person going to take maternity leave and be less available for work?”

For Dr. Warsame, “the idea that American citizens were frequently made to feel like they do not belong was surprising.”

Not surprising to Dr. Warsame, however, was the importance of fostering diversity and inclusion during fellowship years. Fellows often noted that greater diversity within the program helped create a more inclusive environment.

“[What’s] important to reinforce is the value of creating platforms for honest discussion and intentionally seeking fellows’ voices and perspectives, which in turn makes them feel like they belong,” Dr. Warsame said.

Still, the researchers found that fellows often did not report incidents of discrimination or bias. Only six trainees were aware of policies for reporting patient misconduct or discrimination, and only one ever reported an incident.
 

Where’s the support?

For Dr. Duncan, her encounter 3 years ago with the patient with sunglasses wasn’t her first experience of discrimination on the job — or her last.

Although hurtful in the moment, she had the wherewithal to report the incident to her attending physician, who was equally shocked. Initially unsure of how to handle it, the attending ultimately stepped up and provided “immense support,” Dr. Duncan said

The issue was brought to the attention of the program director, who took swift action. The patient was documented as “disruptive,” informed of that status in writing, and was banned from receiving treatment from trainees at the center, although Dr. Duncan noted he still received the medical care he needed.

Often, however, fellows who report incidents of discrimination and racism receive little support. According to Dr. Warsame and colleagues, most trainees don’t bother reporting these experiences because they believe that doing so would be futile.

“Concerns about reporting included jeopardizing future employability, risk of retaliation, and challenges reporting experiences that could be perceived as subjective and difficult to prove,” the authors write.

For instance, one interviewee said: “I’m afraid to report these things because there’s gonna be repercussions. There’s no way it’s gonna be anonymous.... I just have to toughen up and, you know, get used [to it].”

Dr. Warsame added, “A major challenge for trainees was that they often felt unheard, and at the time, there was no formal debrief regarding discrimination issues when they arose.”

These instances of bias have implications for trainee well-being. In a 2019 study, discrimination that physicians and students experienced during training had adverse effects on their emotional health. Responses from 50 trainees and physicians revealed a wide range of discriminatory experiences, including patients rejecting care and spewing racist, sexist, or homophobic epithets. Many physicians were uncertain about how to respond effectively and appropriately.

Since that study was published and after having completed her own fellowship, Dr. Duncan said she has seen some change for the better.

“There is a lot more awareness around this, and programs are trying to do better in recognizing and responding to incidents,” she said. She noted that it’s important to ensure that those who are directly affected by discriminatory behaviors aren’t left to do all of the “heavy lifting” of addressing and resolving the issues.

The weight of discriminatory incidents, from microaggressions to overt racism, is cumulative and can adversely affect a person’s career. “It’s exhausting -- we need support,” she said.

The Mayo Clinic is working to ensure that trainees receive support. “The study has prompted communication workshops and faculty development to better equip trainees with strategies to address [and report] patients who behave or display disrespectful or discriminatory behavior,” Dr. Warsame said.

She and her colleagues noted that the anonymous hotline used for the survey cultivated a safe environment for candid discussions and that such an approach is “feasible and effective to explore sensitive topics and scalable to various geographic locations and different medical specialties.”

“We recognize that our program must seek this feedback regularly and ensure we keep a finger on the pulse of our trainees,” Dr. Warsame added.

Dr. Warsame and Dr. Duncan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Duncan noted that her views and comments are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her institution.

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

A majority of healthy preschoolers were able to recognize emotions shown in static pictures of adults with and without face masks, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 276 children.

Some are concerned about the effects of adults working in preschools wearing face masks on the ability of young children to learn to recognize emotions, study author Juliane Schneider, MD, of University Hospital Lausanne (Switzerland), and colleagues wrote. Previous studies using photographs of faces with digitally added masks have suggested that young children’s emotional recognition was worse with masked faces.

In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers tested the impact of masks on the ability of preschool children to identify joy, anger, and sadness. The study included 135 girls and 141 boys aged 36-72 months with a mean age of 52.4 months. The tests were conducted at nine daycare centers.

Children were shown photographs of 15 actors (5 men and 10 women) with and without surgical face masks. The total data set included 90 pictures illustrating joy, anger, and sadness. The children were shown the pictures at random, and they could either name the emotion, point to a card with emoticons showing the three emotions, or respond “I don’t know” or “quit the experiment.” Test sessions lasted approximately 7 minutes per child. Effect sizes were calculated using X² and Cramer V tests.

Overall, 68.8% of the children correctly identified the emotion portrayed; the correct response rate was 70.6% for faces without face masks and 66.9% for those with face masks. Correct recognition of joy was significantly higher for faces without masks than for those with masks (94.8% vs. 87.3), as was correct recognition of sadness (54.1% vs. 48.9%; P < .001 for both). Recognition of anger was not significantly different for unmasked and masked faces (62.2% vs. 64.6%, P = .10).

No significant differences in correct responses appeared between boys and girls and the rate of correct responses increased significantly with age. The rates of “I don’t know,” and “quit the experiment” responses were 3.1% and 2.2%, respectively. In an analysis of incorrect responses, approximately 25% of the children confused anger and sadness, and 21% misidentified joy for images of anger or sadness.

“Overall, participants in this study, who had been exposed to face masks for nearly a year, recognized emotions on pictures better than has been reported in previous research, even with face masks,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of static pictures versus real individuals, which limits generalizability, and the lack of data on children with developmental issues, the researchers noted.

Despite relatively small differences and weak effect size (Cramer V scores of 0.2 or less for all), the results show a stronger recognition of emotion, compared with other studies, and highlight the importance of investigating the impact of face masks on other aspects of child development as the COVID-19 pandemic persists, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A majority of healthy preschoolers were able to recognize emotions shown in static pictures of adults with and without face masks, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 276 children.

Some are concerned about the effects of adults working in preschools wearing face masks on the ability of young children to learn to recognize emotions, study author Juliane Schneider, MD, of University Hospital Lausanne (Switzerland), and colleagues wrote. Previous studies using photographs of faces with digitally added masks have suggested that young children’s emotional recognition was worse with masked faces.

In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers tested the impact of masks on the ability of preschool children to identify joy, anger, and sadness. The study included 135 girls and 141 boys aged 36-72 months with a mean age of 52.4 months. The tests were conducted at nine daycare centers.

Children were shown photographs of 15 actors (5 men and 10 women) with and without surgical face masks. The total data set included 90 pictures illustrating joy, anger, and sadness. The children were shown the pictures at random, and they could either name the emotion, point to a card with emoticons showing the three emotions, or respond “I don’t know” or “quit the experiment.” Test sessions lasted approximately 7 minutes per child. Effect sizes were calculated using X² and Cramer V tests.

Overall, 68.8% of the children correctly identified the emotion portrayed; the correct response rate was 70.6% for faces without face masks and 66.9% for those with face masks. Correct recognition of joy was significantly higher for faces without masks than for those with masks (94.8% vs. 87.3), as was correct recognition of sadness (54.1% vs. 48.9%; P < .001 for both). Recognition of anger was not significantly different for unmasked and masked faces (62.2% vs. 64.6%, P = .10).

No significant differences in correct responses appeared between boys and girls and the rate of correct responses increased significantly with age. The rates of “I don’t know,” and “quit the experiment” responses were 3.1% and 2.2%, respectively. In an analysis of incorrect responses, approximately 25% of the children confused anger and sadness, and 21% misidentified joy for images of anger or sadness.

“Overall, participants in this study, who had been exposed to face masks for nearly a year, recognized emotions on pictures better than has been reported in previous research, even with face masks,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of static pictures versus real individuals, which limits generalizability, and the lack of data on children with developmental issues, the researchers noted.

Despite relatively small differences and weak effect size (Cramer V scores of 0.2 or less for all), the results show a stronger recognition of emotion, compared with other studies, and highlight the importance of investigating the impact of face masks on other aspects of child development as the COVID-19 pandemic persists, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A majority of healthy preschoolers were able to recognize emotions shown in static pictures of adults with and without face masks, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 276 children.

Some are concerned about the effects of adults working in preschools wearing face masks on the ability of young children to learn to recognize emotions, study author Juliane Schneider, MD, of University Hospital Lausanne (Switzerland), and colleagues wrote. Previous studies using photographs of faces with digitally added masks have suggested that young children’s emotional recognition was worse with masked faces.

In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers tested the impact of masks on the ability of preschool children to identify joy, anger, and sadness. The study included 135 girls and 141 boys aged 36-72 months with a mean age of 52.4 months. The tests were conducted at nine daycare centers.

Children were shown photographs of 15 actors (5 men and 10 women) with and without surgical face masks. The total data set included 90 pictures illustrating joy, anger, and sadness. The children were shown the pictures at random, and they could either name the emotion, point to a card with emoticons showing the three emotions, or respond “I don’t know” or “quit the experiment.” Test sessions lasted approximately 7 minutes per child. Effect sizes were calculated using X² and Cramer V tests.

Overall, 68.8% of the children correctly identified the emotion portrayed; the correct response rate was 70.6% for faces without face masks and 66.9% for those with face masks. Correct recognition of joy was significantly higher for faces without masks than for those with masks (94.8% vs. 87.3), as was correct recognition of sadness (54.1% vs. 48.9%; P < .001 for both). Recognition of anger was not significantly different for unmasked and masked faces (62.2% vs. 64.6%, P = .10).

No significant differences in correct responses appeared between boys and girls and the rate of correct responses increased significantly with age. The rates of “I don’t know,” and “quit the experiment” responses were 3.1% and 2.2%, respectively. In an analysis of incorrect responses, approximately 25% of the children confused anger and sadness, and 21% misidentified joy for images of anger or sadness.

“Overall, participants in this study, who had been exposed to face masks for nearly a year, recognized emotions on pictures better than has been reported in previous research, even with face masks,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of static pictures versus real individuals, which limits generalizability, and the lack of data on children with developmental issues, the researchers noted.

Despite relatively small differences and weak effect size (Cramer V scores of 0.2 or less for all), the results show a stronger recognition of emotion, compared with other studies, and highlight the importance of investigating the impact of face masks on other aspects of child development as the COVID-19 pandemic persists, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

People with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation who explored potential triggers of their arrhythmia, and used them to make lifestyle changes, went on to show a 40% decline in subjectively experienced bouts of AFib in a randomized trial with an unusual design.

American Heart Association

But the study didn’t provide evidence that the drop in self-reported AFib necessarily improved their quality of life, its primary endpoint. Nor was there any apparent relationship between potential triggers and AFib episodes detected less subjectively using a handheld electrocardiography monitor.

Although the study – called I-STOP-AFib – has limitations, its results jibe with alcohol intake’s increasingly appreciated status as a potential AFib trigger. It was alone among many possible triggers tested in showing a consistent association with self-reported AFib.

As a result, the study offers no support for such a link between the arrhythmia and caffeine intake, sleep deprivation, dehydration, exercise, or other conditions sometimes perceived as triggers, observed principal investigator Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, when presenting results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. He is also lead author on the study’s simultaneous publication in JAMA Cardiology.

The I-STOP-AFib trial was unusual in part for its virtual design, in which participants followed instructions and tracked AFib episodes – both perceived and detected by the handheld ECG device – through a smartphone application. It also featured an N-of-1 randomized comparisons of different weeks in which individuals were or were not exposed to their self-selected trigger.

Such patients following their own weekly personalized randomization were compared to an entirely separate randomized control arm of the trial, in which patients simply tracked any ECG-monitored and self-perceived AFib episodes.
 

Current use in patients

Although wearable and smartphone-based ECG recorders are increasingly popular for AFib screening, Dr. Marcus said the devices may be especially helpful for validating whether a person’s symptoms are actually caused by AFib.

“I have actually suggested to some of my patients that they run some of these experiments,” he said at a media briefing on I-STOP-AFib before his main presentation of the trial. The demonstration might help patients recognize that some perceived triggers actually do not induce AFib.

Allowing patients to determine on their own whether a substance indeed triggers their AFib “is an efficient use of these devices,” Dr. Marcus said. Such N-of-1 exploration of possible triggers “might help free patients up to enjoy substances – caffeine or coffee is one example – that they otherwise might not, and may help actually reassure them that certain exposures –like certain exercises, which can also be beneficial – might actually not be harmful.”

Dr. Marcus and the other authors on the report noted – as he did at the AHA sessions – that the study has several limitations, such as the subjectivity of self-reported AFib, dropouts from the trial that shrank the randomization arms, and a population that may not be very representative.

There is also the potential for detection bias in the group assigned to track their selected triggers, as Dr. Marcus and some observers have noted.

It follows that conscious avoidance of a potential AFib trigger might well lead to a reduction in AFib subjectively identified by symptoms, proposed David Conen, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But perhaps there would have been no reduction in AFib had it been objectively documented with the handheld ECG device, he said in an interview.

“If I were to redesign the study,” he said, “I think the primary endpoint should be confirmed atrial fibrillation, because we would have to show first that the specific trigger actually reduced objective AFib events before we then try to address the question whether reducing that trigger improves quality of life.”
 

Unrepresentative sample

The trial entered 446 overwhelmingly White and college-educated adults known to have symptomatic paroxysmal AFib who were “interested in testing a presumed AFib trigger they could readily introduce or withhold” and who owned a smartphone; the average age was 58 years, and 58% were men. The cohort was randomly assigned to the trigger-testing group or the control group, charged only with tracking their AFib.

Of the total, 320, or about 72%, completed the study; those who did not were mostly from the trigger-testing arm, leaving 136 in that group versus 184 patients in the control group.

Potential triggers that participants selected for tracking included, foremost, caffeine, alcohol, reduced sleep, and exercise, followed by lying on the left side, dehydration, large meals, and cold food or drink, the report noted.

Patients in the control group used the smartphone app and handheld ECG monitor (KardiaMobile, AliveCor) to document the duration and severity of AFib episodes daily and received data summary reports through the app weekly for 10 weeks. They then had the option to follow the trigger-testing protocol at least once.

Those in the trigger-testing group conducted their N-of-1 trials by exposing themselves to their chosen potential trigger during 3 separate weeks and avoiding the trigger during 3 other weeks, alternating each of the 6 weeks of trigger exposure or avoidance. They were instructed through the app to start the 6-week sequence with one or the other strategy randomly and to regularly track their AFib.

At the end of 6 weeks, each participant in the trigger-testing group had the opportunity to review their data for any potential trigger-AFib associations. They were then to use the next 4 weeks to enact lifestyle changes based on what they learned – as described in the report and on clinicaltrials.gov. They had the option of repeating the entire N-of-1 sequence at least one more time.

Participants in both the trigger-tracking and control arms were tested at baseline and at 10 weeks using the validated Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire.

AFEQT scores didn’t change significantly over the 10 weeks in either arm, nor were they significantly different in one arm, compared with the other.

On the other hand, patients in the trigger-tracking arm reported significantly fewer daily AFib episodes during the final 4-week period of lifestyle changes based on their N-of-1 trial results, compared to the monitoring-only control group’s final 4 weeks.

The adjusted relative risk in the trigger-tracking arm was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.83; P < .001), the difference driven by patients who selected alcohol, dehydration, or exercise for their trigger, Dr. Marcus reported.

Only alcohol intake emerged consistently as a significant predictor of risk for self-reported AFib episodes in a series of meta-analyses conducted using all of the individual N-of-1 trials that provided per-protocol data. The odds ratio was 1.77 (95% CI, 1.20-2.69).

I-STOP-AFib explored an important subject “that has been understudied,” Dr. Conen said. “The trial has some limitations that the authors address themselves, but hopefully it opens the path to future studies that can build upon this experience.”

Dr. Marcus reported receiving personal fees and equity interest from InCarda Therapeutics; personal fees from Johnson & Johnson; and grants from Baylis Medical, Medtronic, the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

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

People with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation who explored potential triggers of their arrhythmia, and used them to make lifestyle changes, went on to show a 40% decline in subjectively experienced bouts of AFib in a randomized trial with an unusual design.

American Heart Association

But the study didn’t provide evidence that the drop in self-reported AFib necessarily improved their quality of life, its primary endpoint. Nor was there any apparent relationship between potential triggers and AFib episodes detected less subjectively using a handheld electrocardiography monitor.

Although the study – called I-STOP-AFib – has limitations, its results jibe with alcohol intake’s increasingly appreciated status as a potential AFib trigger. It was alone among many possible triggers tested in showing a consistent association with self-reported AFib.

As a result, the study offers no support for such a link between the arrhythmia and caffeine intake, sleep deprivation, dehydration, exercise, or other conditions sometimes perceived as triggers, observed principal investigator Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, when presenting results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. He is also lead author on the study’s simultaneous publication in JAMA Cardiology.

The I-STOP-AFib trial was unusual in part for its virtual design, in which participants followed instructions and tracked AFib episodes – both perceived and detected by the handheld ECG device – through a smartphone application. It also featured an N-of-1 randomized comparisons of different weeks in which individuals were or were not exposed to their self-selected trigger.

Such patients following their own weekly personalized randomization were compared to an entirely separate randomized control arm of the trial, in which patients simply tracked any ECG-monitored and self-perceived AFib episodes.
 

Current use in patients

Although wearable and smartphone-based ECG recorders are increasingly popular for AFib screening, Dr. Marcus said the devices may be especially helpful for validating whether a person’s symptoms are actually caused by AFib.

“I have actually suggested to some of my patients that they run some of these experiments,” he said at a media briefing on I-STOP-AFib before his main presentation of the trial. The demonstration might help patients recognize that some perceived triggers actually do not induce AFib.

Allowing patients to determine on their own whether a substance indeed triggers their AFib “is an efficient use of these devices,” Dr. Marcus said. Such N-of-1 exploration of possible triggers “might help free patients up to enjoy substances – caffeine or coffee is one example – that they otherwise might not, and may help actually reassure them that certain exposures –like certain exercises, which can also be beneficial – might actually not be harmful.”

Dr. Marcus and the other authors on the report noted – as he did at the AHA sessions – that the study has several limitations, such as the subjectivity of self-reported AFib, dropouts from the trial that shrank the randomization arms, and a population that may not be very representative.

There is also the potential for detection bias in the group assigned to track their selected triggers, as Dr. Marcus and some observers have noted.

It follows that conscious avoidance of a potential AFib trigger might well lead to a reduction in AFib subjectively identified by symptoms, proposed David Conen, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But perhaps there would have been no reduction in AFib had it been objectively documented with the handheld ECG device, he said in an interview.

“If I were to redesign the study,” he said, “I think the primary endpoint should be confirmed atrial fibrillation, because we would have to show first that the specific trigger actually reduced objective AFib events before we then try to address the question whether reducing that trigger improves quality of life.”
 

Unrepresentative sample

The trial entered 446 overwhelmingly White and college-educated adults known to have symptomatic paroxysmal AFib who were “interested in testing a presumed AFib trigger they could readily introduce or withhold” and who owned a smartphone; the average age was 58 years, and 58% were men. The cohort was randomly assigned to the trigger-testing group or the control group, charged only with tracking their AFib.

Of the total, 320, or about 72%, completed the study; those who did not were mostly from the trigger-testing arm, leaving 136 in that group versus 184 patients in the control group.

Potential triggers that participants selected for tracking included, foremost, caffeine, alcohol, reduced sleep, and exercise, followed by lying on the left side, dehydration, large meals, and cold food or drink, the report noted.

Patients in the control group used the smartphone app and handheld ECG monitor (KardiaMobile, AliveCor) to document the duration and severity of AFib episodes daily and received data summary reports through the app weekly for 10 weeks. They then had the option to follow the trigger-testing protocol at least once.

Those in the trigger-testing group conducted their N-of-1 trials by exposing themselves to their chosen potential trigger during 3 separate weeks and avoiding the trigger during 3 other weeks, alternating each of the 6 weeks of trigger exposure or avoidance. They were instructed through the app to start the 6-week sequence with one or the other strategy randomly and to regularly track their AFib.

At the end of 6 weeks, each participant in the trigger-testing group had the opportunity to review their data for any potential trigger-AFib associations. They were then to use the next 4 weeks to enact lifestyle changes based on what they learned – as described in the report and on clinicaltrials.gov. They had the option of repeating the entire N-of-1 sequence at least one more time.

Participants in both the trigger-tracking and control arms were tested at baseline and at 10 weeks using the validated Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire.

AFEQT scores didn’t change significantly over the 10 weeks in either arm, nor were they significantly different in one arm, compared with the other.

On the other hand, patients in the trigger-tracking arm reported significantly fewer daily AFib episodes during the final 4-week period of lifestyle changes based on their N-of-1 trial results, compared to the monitoring-only control group’s final 4 weeks.

The adjusted relative risk in the trigger-tracking arm was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.83; P < .001), the difference driven by patients who selected alcohol, dehydration, or exercise for their trigger, Dr. Marcus reported.

Only alcohol intake emerged consistently as a significant predictor of risk for self-reported AFib episodes in a series of meta-analyses conducted using all of the individual N-of-1 trials that provided per-protocol data. The odds ratio was 1.77 (95% CI, 1.20-2.69).

I-STOP-AFib explored an important subject “that has been understudied,” Dr. Conen said. “The trial has some limitations that the authors address themselves, but hopefully it opens the path to future studies that can build upon this experience.”

Dr. Marcus reported receiving personal fees and equity interest from InCarda Therapeutics; personal fees from Johnson & Johnson; and grants from Baylis Medical, Medtronic, the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

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

People with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation who explored potential triggers of their arrhythmia, and used them to make lifestyle changes, went on to show a 40% decline in subjectively experienced bouts of AFib in a randomized trial with an unusual design.

American Heart Association

But the study didn’t provide evidence that the drop in self-reported AFib necessarily improved their quality of life, its primary endpoint. Nor was there any apparent relationship between potential triggers and AFib episodes detected less subjectively using a handheld electrocardiography monitor.

Although the study – called I-STOP-AFib – has limitations, its results jibe with alcohol intake’s increasingly appreciated status as a potential AFib trigger. It was alone among many possible triggers tested in showing a consistent association with self-reported AFib.

As a result, the study offers no support for such a link between the arrhythmia and caffeine intake, sleep deprivation, dehydration, exercise, or other conditions sometimes perceived as triggers, observed principal investigator Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, when presenting results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. He is also lead author on the study’s simultaneous publication in JAMA Cardiology.

The I-STOP-AFib trial was unusual in part for its virtual design, in which participants followed instructions and tracked AFib episodes – both perceived and detected by the handheld ECG device – through a smartphone application. It also featured an N-of-1 randomized comparisons of different weeks in which individuals were or were not exposed to their self-selected trigger.

Such patients following their own weekly personalized randomization were compared to an entirely separate randomized control arm of the trial, in which patients simply tracked any ECG-monitored and self-perceived AFib episodes.
 

Current use in patients

Although wearable and smartphone-based ECG recorders are increasingly popular for AFib screening, Dr. Marcus said the devices may be especially helpful for validating whether a person’s symptoms are actually caused by AFib.

“I have actually suggested to some of my patients that they run some of these experiments,” he said at a media briefing on I-STOP-AFib before his main presentation of the trial. The demonstration might help patients recognize that some perceived triggers actually do not induce AFib.

Allowing patients to determine on their own whether a substance indeed triggers their AFib “is an efficient use of these devices,” Dr. Marcus said. Such N-of-1 exploration of possible triggers “might help free patients up to enjoy substances – caffeine or coffee is one example – that they otherwise might not, and may help actually reassure them that certain exposures –like certain exercises, which can also be beneficial – might actually not be harmful.”

Dr. Marcus and the other authors on the report noted – as he did at the AHA sessions – that the study has several limitations, such as the subjectivity of self-reported AFib, dropouts from the trial that shrank the randomization arms, and a population that may not be very representative.

There is also the potential for detection bias in the group assigned to track their selected triggers, as Dr. Marcus and some observers have noted.

It follows that conscious avoidance of a potential AFib trigger might well lead to a reduction in AFib subjectively identified by symptoms, proposed David Conen, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But perhaps there would have been no reduction in AFib had it been objectively documented with the handheld ECG device, he said in an interview.

“If I were to redesign the study,” he said, “I think the primary endpoint should be confirmed atrial fibrillation, because we would have to show first that the specific trigger actually reduced objective AFib events before we then try to address the question whether reducing that trigger improves quality of life.”
 

Unrepresentative sample

The trial entered 446 overwhelmingly White and college-educated adults known to have symptomatic paroxysmal AFib who were “interested in testing a presumed AFib trigger they could readily introduce or withhold” and who owned a smartphone; the average age was 58 years, and 58% were men. The cohort was randomly assigned to the trigger-testing group or the control group, charged only with tracking their AFib.

Of the total, 320, or about 72%, completed the study; those who did not were mostly from the trigger-testing arm, leaving 136 in that group versus 184 patients in the control group.

Potential triggers that participants selected for tracking included, foremost, caffeine, alcohol, reduced sleep, and exercise, followed by lying on the left side, dehydration, large meals, and cold food or drink, the report noted.

Patients in the control group used the smartphone app and handheld ECG monitor (KardiaMobile, AliveCor) to document the duration and severity of AFib episodes daily and received data summary reports through the app weekly for 10 weeks. They then had the option to follow the trigger-testing protocol at least once.

Those in the trigger-testing group conducted their N-of-1 trials by exposing themselves to their chosen potential trigger during 3 separate weeks and avoiding the trigger during 3 other weeks, alternating each of the 6 weeks of trigger exposure or avoidance. They were instructed through the app to start the 6-week sequence with one or the other strategy randomly and to regularly track their AFib.

At the end of 6 weeks, each participant in the trigger-testing group had the opportunity to review their data for any potential trigger-AFib associations. They were then to use the next 4 weeks to enact lifestyle changes based on what they learned – as described in the report and on clinicaltrials.gov. They had the option of repeating the entire N-of-1 sequence at least one more time.

Participants in both the trigger-tracking and control arms were tested at baseline and at 10 weeks using the validated Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire.

AFEQT scores didn’t change significantly over the 10 weeks in either arm, nor were they significantly different in one arm, compared with the other.

On the other hand, patients in the trigger-tracking arm reported significantly fewer daily AFib episodes during the final 4-week period of lifestyle changes based on their N-of-1 trial results, compared to the monitoring-only control group’s final 4 weeks.

The adjusted relative risk in the trigger-tracking arm was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.83; P < .001), the difference driven by patients who selected alcohol, dehydration, or exercise for their trigger, Dr. Marcus reported.

Only alcohol intake emerged consistently as a significant predictor of risk for self-reported AFib episodes in a series of meta-analyses conducted using all of the individual N-of-1 trials that provided per-protocol data. The odds ratio was 1.77 (95% CI, 1.20-2.69).

I-STOP-AFib explored an important subject “that has been understudied,” Dr. Conen said. “The trial has some limitations that the authors address themselves, but hopefully it opens the path to future studies that can build upon this experience.”

Dr. Marcus reported receiving personal fees and equity interest from InCarda Therapeutics; personal fees from Johnson & Johnson; and grants from Baylis Medical, Medtronic, the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

Venetoclax’s regulatory approvals, its success as monotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other lymphoid neoplasms, and its activity in combination against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have helped pave the way for BCL2 and MCL1 inhibitors that target prosurvival, antiapoptosis proteins.

A first-in-class specific inhibitor of BCL2, venetoclax has been quickly followed by drugs that target either BCL2 or proteins with similar prosurvival function, especially MCL1. A review by Andrew W. Roberts, MD, of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, and associates details their key features, including their activity and tolerability and resistance issues. The review was published in Blood .
 

BH3 mimetics

BH3 mimetics, a new class of small-molecule anticancer drugs, enable specific targeting of BCL2 and MCL1, commonly expressed antiapoptotic proteins in hematologic cancers. The BH3 mimetics inhibit prosurvival BCL2 proteins, enabling activation of the apoptosis effectors BAX and BK that make the outer mitochondrial membranes permeable. This result triggers apoptosis in many cells, while sensitizing others to cell death when the BH3 mimetics are combined with other antineoplastic drugs. The BAX/BAK–driven effect on mitochondrial membranes is to undermine normal energy production, allowing leakage of cell contents, including cytochrome c, a trigger of proteolytic enzymes and cellular demolition.

Navitoclax was the first potent BCL2 inhibitor to enter clinical trials. While it demonstrated moderate single-agent activity in relapsed CLL and indolent B-cell lymphomas, its dose-limiting toxicity of thrombocytopenia precluded further exploration of BCL2 inhibition. Navitoclax is being developed for hematologic disease (for example, myelofibrosis and acute lymphoblastic leukemia). Clinical development of other BH3 mimetics is only in the earliest stages, the authors wrote.

Venetoclax, to avoid this on-target thrombocytopenia, was designed to specifically inhibit BCL2 with great selectivity, a feature not found in naturally occurring BH3-only proteins. The fact that it could inhibit a single prosurvival protein and have important clinical activity proved enormously stimulating to development of this drug class. Potent BH3 mimetics now can also selectively target MCL1, which plays a central role in plasma cells (mature B lymphocytes are highly reliant on BCL2).

In CLL, dependence on BCL2 is high. Venetoclax, since it was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2016 as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory del(17p) CLL, has been approved widely in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory CLL and for unfit patients with newly diagnosed CLL in combination with obinutuzumab. With venetoclax monotherapy, quickly achieved high objective response rates (79%) and complete remissions (20%) revealed the drug’s dose-limiting toxicity of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). This necessitated gradual ramp-up dosing in those with high disease burden or reduced renal function. Also, despite the adoption of a venetoclax/rituximab combination as standard for relapsed/refractory CLL, the authors underscored that evidence for an additive rituximab benefit is modest and limited.
 

Resistance

While resistance to venetoclax leading to treatment failure is uncommon in the first year, secondary resistance occurs through several independently occurring mechanisms, including mutations in BCL2 (for example, Gly101Val), overexpression of MCL1, and overexpression of BCLxL. Usual venetoclax therapy is now time limited. Early data on re-exposure shows high rates (about 70%) of secondary responses.

AML

In AML, a more heterogeneous disease than CLL, BCL2 expression varies widely and can be heterogeneous even within a single patient’s leukemic cell population. While responses to venetoclax monotherapy were not durable, combination therapy with azacitidine has revealed enhanced activity. The venetoclax/azacitidine combination has been widely adopted as first-line therapy for older and unfit AML patients. Myelosuppression is the major toxicity.

“As venetoclax is the first in a new class of anticancer drug,” Andrew W. Roberts, MD, said in an interview, “we are still in the process of working out how it can be best utilized. Regimens free of DNA-damaging chemotherapy using this BCL2 inhibitor in combination with obinutuzumab or rituximab in CLL are established. Across B-cell neoplasia (e.g. CLL, mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma), the challenge is to work out whether venetoclax can enhance other ‘chemotherapy-free’ regimens.” He continued: “In contrast, for AML, learning how venetoclax can be safely combined with intensive chemotherapy is a priority, as we seek to improve outcomes for patients with poor prognosis disease. For MCL1 inhibitors, there is excitement about their potential, but their clinical development remains in its infancy.”

The authors reported multiple financial disclosures.

Venetoclax’s regulatory approvals, its success as monotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other lymphoid neoplasms, and its activity in combination against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have helped pave the way for BCL2 and MCL1 inhibitors that target prosurvival, antiapoptosis proteins.

A first-in-class specific inhibitor of BCL2, venetoclax has been quickly followed by drugs that target either BCL2 or proteins with similar prosurvival function, especially MCL1. A review by Andrew W. Roberts, MD, of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, and associates details their key features, including their activity and tolerability and resistance issues. The review was published in Blood .
 

BH3 mimetics

BH3 mimetics, a new class of small-molecule anticancer drugs, enable specific targeting of BCL2 and MCL1, commonly expressed antiapoptotic proteins in hematologic cancers. The BH3 mimetics inhibit prosurvival BCL2 proteins, enabling activation of the apoptosis effectors BAX and BK that make the outer mitochondrial membranes permeable. This result triggers apoptosis in many cells, while sensitizing others to cell death when the BH3 mimetics are combined with other antineoplastic drugs. The BAX/BAK–driven effect on mitochondrial membranes is to undermine normal energy production, allowing leakage of cell contents, including cytochrome c, a trigger of proteolytic enzymes and cellular demolition.

Navitoclax was the first potent BCL2 inhibitor to enter clinical trials. While it demonstrated moderate single-agent activity in relapsed CLL and indolent B-cell lymphomas, its dose-limiting toxicity of thrombocytopenia precluded further exploration of BCL2 inhibition. Navitoclax is being developed for hematologic disease (for example, myelofibrosis and acute lymphoblastic leukemia). Clinical development of other BH3 mimetics is only in the earliest stages, the authors wrote.

Venetoclax, to avoid this on-target thrombocytopenia, was designed to specifically inhibit BCL2 with great selectivity, a feature not found in naturally occurring BH3-only proteins. The fact that it could inhibit a single prosurvival protein and have important clinical activity proved enormously stimulating to development of this drug class. Potent BH3 mimetics now can also selectively target MCL1, which plays a central role in plasma cells (mature B lymphocytes are highly reliant on BCL2).

In CLL, dependence on BCL2 is high. Venetoclax, since it was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2016 as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory del(17p) CLL, has been approved widely in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory CLL and for unfit patients with newly diagnosed CLL in combination with obinutuzumab. With venetoclax monotherapy, quickly achieved high objective response rates (79%) and complete remissions (20%) revealed the drug’s dose-limiting toxicity of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). This necessitated gradual ramp-up dosing in those with high disease burden or reduced renal function. Also, despite the adoption of a venetoclax/rituximab combination as standard for relapsed/refractory CLL, the authors underscored that evidence for an additive rituximab benefit is modest and limited.
 

Resistance

While resistance to venetoclax leading to treatment failure is uncommon in the first year, secondary resistance occurs through several independently occurring mechanisms, including mutations in BCL2 (for example, Gly101Val), overexpression of MCL1, and overexpression of BCLxL. Usual venetoclax therapy is now time limited. Early data on re-exposure shows high rates (about 70%) of secondary responses.

AML

In AML, a more heterogeneous disease than CLL, BCL2 expression varies widely and can be heterogeneous even within a single patient’s leukemic cell population. While responses to venetoclax monotherapy were not durable, combination therapy with azacitidine has revealed enhanced activity. The venetoclax/azacitidine combination has been widely adopted as first-line therapy for older and unfit AML patients. Myelosuppression is the major toxicity.

“As venetoclax is the first in a new class of anticancer drug,” Andrew W. Roberts, MD, said in an interview, “we are still in the process of working out how it can be best utilized. Regimens free of DNA-damaging chemotherapy using this BCL2 inhibitor in combination with obinutuzumab or rituximab in CLL are established. Across B-cell neoplasia (e.g. CLL, mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma), the challenge is to work out whether venetoclax can enhance other ‘chemotherapy-free’ regimens.” He continued: “In contrast, for AML, learning how venetoclax can be safely combined with intensive chemotherapy is a priority, as we seek to improve outcomes for patients with poor prognosis disease. For MCL1 inhibitors, there is excitement about their potential, but their clinical development remains in its infancy.”

The authors reported multiple financial disclosures.

Venetoclax’s regulatory approvals, its success as monotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other lymphoid neoplasms, and its activity in combination against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have helped pave the way for BCL2 and MCL1 inhibitors that target prosurvival, antiapoptosis proteins.

A first-in-class specific inhibitor of BCL2, venetoclax has been quickly followed by drugs that target either BCL2 or proteins with similar prosurvival function, especially MCL1. A review by Andrew W. Roberts, MD, of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, and associates details their key features, including their activity and tolerability and resistance issues. The review was published in Blood .
 

BH3 mimetics

BH3 mimetics, a new class of small-molecule anticancer drugs, enable specific targeting of BCL2 and MCL1, commonly expressed antiapoptotic proteins in hematologic cancers. The BH3 mimetics inhibit prosurvival BCL2 proteins, enabling activation of the apoptosis effectors BAX and BK that make the outer mitochondrial membranes permeable. This result triggers apoptosis in many cells, while sensitizing others to cell death when the BH3 mimetics are combined with other antineoplastic drugs. The BAX/BAK–driven effect on mitochondrial membranes is to undermine normal energy production, allowing leakage of cell contents, including cytochrome c, a trigger of proteolytic enzymes and cellular demolition.

Navitoclax was the first potent BCL2 inhibitor to enter clinical trials. While it demonstrated moderate single-agent activity in relapsed CLL and indolent B-cell lymphomas, its dose-limiting toxicity of thrombocytopenia precluded further exploration of BCL2 inhibition. Navitoclax is being developed for hematologic disease (for example, myelofibrosis and acute lymphoblastic leukemia). Clinical development of other BH3 mimetics is only in the earliest stages, the authors wrote.

Venetoclax, to avoid this on-target thrombocytopenia, was designed to specifically inhibit BCL2 with great selectivity, a feature not found in naturally occurring BH3-only proteins. The fact that it could inhibit a single prosurvival protein and have important clinical activity proved enormously stimulating to development of this drug class. Potent BH3 mimetics now can also selectively target MCL1, which plays a central role in plasma cells (mature B lymphocytes are highly reliant on BCL2).

In CLL, dependence on BCL2 is high. Venetoclax, since it was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2016 as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory del(17p) CLL, has been approved widely in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory CLL and for unfit patients with newly diagnosed CLL in combination with obinutuzumab. With venetoclax monotherapy, quickly achieved high objective response rates (79%) and complete remissions (20%) revealed the drug’s dose-limiting toxicity of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). This necessitated gradual ramp-up dosing in those with high disease burden or reduced renal function. Also, despite the adoption of a venetoclax/rituximab combination as standard for relapsed/refractory CLL, the authors underscored that evidence for an additive rituximab benefit is modest and limited.
 

Resistance

While resistance to venetoclax leading to treatment failure is uncommon in the first year, secondary resistance occurs through several independently occurring mechanisms, including mutations in BCL2 (for example, Gly101Val), overexpression of MCL1, and overexpression of BCLxL. Usual venetoclax therapy is now time limited. Early data on re-exposure shows high rates (about 70%) of secondary responses.

AML

In AML, a more heterogeneous disease than CLL, BCL2 expression varies widely and can be heterogeneous even within a single patient’s leukemic cell population. While responses to venetoclax monotherapy were not durable, combination therapy with azacitidine has revealed enhanced activity. The venetoclax/azacitidine combination has been widely adopted as first-line therapy for older and unfit AML patients. Myelosuppression is the major toxicity.

“As venetoclax is the first in a new class of anticancer drug,” Andrew W. Roberts, MD, said in an interview, “we are still in the process of working out how it can be best utilized. Regimens free of DNA-damaging chemotherapy using this BCL2 inhibitor in combination with obinutuzumab or rituximab in CLL are established. Across B-cell neoplasia (e.g. CLL, mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma), the challenge is to work out whether venetoclax can enhance other ‘chemotherapy-free’ regimens.” He continued: “In contrast, for AML, learning how venetoclax can be safely combined with intensive chemotherapy is a priority, as we seek to improve outcomes for patients with poor prognosis disease. For MCL1 inhibitors, there is excitement about their potential, but their clinical development remains in its infancy.”

The authors reported multiple financial disclosures.

Dr. Shailja Shah is a gastroenterologist and clinical researcher at VA San Diego and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Shah leads a multidisciplinary research program anchored in defining non-genetic, genetic, and systems-level determinants of H. pylori treatment- and disease-related clinical outcomes, including gastric cancer, among high-risk populations. She is also actively involved in research and public policy initiatives to promote gastric cancer prevention and early detection efforts. Dr. Shah’s current and prior sources of funding include the US Dept of Veterans Affairs, AHRQ, NIH, and the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

As a gastroenterologist and physician scientist at UCSD/VA San Diego and Moores Cancer Center, when you think about early detection and surveillance of gastric cancer, what are some of the signs and symptoms you look for and how would you factor in risk-based screenings?

Dr. Shah: In the United States, gastric cancer is overlooked because it is thought of as a rare cancer when, in fact, it's more common than esophageal cancer and in certain groups even approaches rates of colorectal cancer. This is important because we have clear guidelines on who to screen for esophageal and colorectal cancer, but we don't have these guidelines for gastric cancer.

The majority of gastric cancer cases in the United States is non-cardia gastric cancer, which refers to the location in the stomach that this type of cancer occurs. This is in comparison to gastric cancer of the cardia which makes up a much smaller percentage. I mention this up front because the risk factor profiles for these two cancers based on anatomic location are different. Cardia gastric cancer mostly tracks with risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma while non-cardia gastric cancer is more common in non-white groups who share a disproportionate burden—with some groups as much as 13.5-fold higher than non-Hispanic whites.

The key to the discussion of risk-based screening for non-cardia gastric cancer is that gastric cancer is typically asymptomatic or presents with only non-specific symptoms until it's in the more advanced stages. There's no cure for gastric cancer once it is in this advanced stage, which is really when symptoms prompt the diagnostic workup. When gastric cancer is caught in the early stage where it is asymptomatic or associated with non-specific symptoms that might not prompt an immediate diagnostic workup—this is the stage that resection would be curative.

There are countries such as Japan and South Korea where endoscopic screening for gastric cancer routinely occurs. This has translated into significant reductions in gastric cancer mortality, although notably has not substantially decreased the actual incidence of cancer. This again suggests that the benefit is early detection and the opportunity for curative resection—which can be accomplished either endoscopically or surgically. The United States population overall is not universally high risk for gastric cancer; however, there are certain identifiable high-risk groups who might benefit from endoscopy for early detection. These include non-white groups and immigrants from high risk countries for gastric cancer, people with a family history of gastric cancer, as well as people with gastric precancerous changes such as atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. These precancerous changes most often are the result of chronic H. pylori infection.

We don't have very precise risk stratification models, and this is a much-needed area of research. We do, however, have evidence from cost-effectiveness analyses that upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening at the time of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening might be cost effective for non-white race and ethnic groups. At the very least, data from these modeling studies can form a starting point when we think of risk-based screening; ideally, we will have data from prospective studies to guide our approach to gastric cancer screening.

Since H. pylori is one of the strongest risk factors for non-cardia gastric cancer, what is your detailed approach to diagnosis and management?

Dr. Shah: H. pylori is a gram-negative bacterium and, globally, it is the most common chronic bacterial infection. Some studies estimate that over half the world's population is infected with H. pylori. It is difficult to get a precise estimate of the global burden of H. pylori, since many times this infection is asymptomatic and it is not one that is routinely screened for in most parts of the world, including the United States. Generally, testing for H. pylori is triggered by GI symptoms such as dyspepsia, abdominal discomfort, or in patients who don't have symptoms, the things that might trigger testing would be a family history of gastric cancer, unexplained iron deficiency, long term NSAID use, and a few other situations.

It is important to diagnose H. pylori because chronic untreated infection is associated with gastric inflammation, which in some cases can progress to loss of the normal gastric glands, a condition known as atrophic gastritis, and, if replaced by intestinal-type tissue, intestinal metaplasia. Such conditions are associated with significantly higher risk of gastric dysplasia and cancer, particularly if there is ongoing H. pylori infection. This stepwise cascade from chronic gastritis to atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and intestinal-type gastric adenocarcinoma is known as the correa cascade, for which H. pylori is the most common trigger.

We know that H. pylori eradication with antibiotics and high dose acid suppression does improve that inflammation and reduces the risk of gastric cancer. But the key here is that the biggest benefit of H. pylori eradication is eradicating H. pylori prior to the development severe atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. Therefore, simply testing and treating for H. pylori is not enough for gastric cancer prevention since some people might already have these advanced changes, since these typically don't cause symptoms. This forms the basis for endoscopic surveillance of these precancerous conditions, which is detailed in the most recent AGA guidelines and clinical practice update on intestinal metaplasia and atrophic gastritis, respectively.

H. pylori eradication still a cornerstone of gastric cancer prevention and risk reduction. Careful treatment selection and ensuring that eradication is confirmed warrants emphasis, particularly in the face of rising rates of H. pylori eradication failure. My key takeaway points for H. pylori eradication therapy is that prior to prescribing treatment, it's very important to review patients prior antibiotic exposures specifically macrolides and fluoroquinolones, since patients who have had treatment with these antibiotics for any condition are more likely to be colonized with resistant H. pylori strains. Clarithromycin-triple therapy should not be used unless patients are confirmed to be colonized with clarithromycin susceptible H. pylori. Bismuth-based quadruple therapy is really the preferred first line treatment instead of clarithromycin-based triple therapy given the high rates of clarithromycin resistance. It's also important to provide patients with anticipatory guidance regarding both the importance of completing the full course, as well as some expected possible side effects of antibiotics such as GI upset, nausea. The other tenant therapy is ensuring appropriate gastric acid suppression, which is a point emphasized in the recently published AGA clinical practice update on H. pylori management. All patients should have repeat non-serological H. pylori testing to ensure that eradication was successful. To reduce false positive or false negative results, this repeat testing should be done at least 2-4 weeks after completion of therapy and with patients off PPI therapy for at least 1-2 weeks.

What have you found to be some of the key disparities in gastric cancer particularly as it pertains to the racial and ethnic groups in the United States?

Dr. Shah: Racial and ethnic differences in gastric cancer incidence is a defining factor for gastric cancer in the United States. Our team recently conducted a population-based analysis of the California Cancer Registry, which is one of, if not the largest and most diverse of the SEER cancer registries. The results of this study highlighted the disparity in risk of gastric cancer based on race/ethnicity. All non-white groups in the US had a significantly higher risk of non-cardia gastric cancer compared to non-Hispanic whites. This was particularly striking in the age group that we generally consider for cancer screening, where there was anywhere from 2-fold up to 13.5-fold higher risk of non-cardia gastric cancer compared to the reference non-Hispanic whites. In some of these groups for example, Korean American men above the age of 50, these rates were on par with colorectal cancer rates. Even more concerning, it is possible that these estimates are actually underestimating the true burden of disease, since early cancer is asymptomatic most of the time and might go undiagnosed in the absence of screening.

We also know that immigrants from countries where gastric cancer incidence is high, also retain that increased risk and mortality even when they immigrate to countries gastric cancer incidence is low overall. Admittedly, this risk varies depending on immigrant generation and level of acculturation, including dietary practices, and other factors. The risk is observed to decrease over subsequent generations and depending on acculturation, which underscores opportunities for research into interventions and initiatives to address modifiable risk factors.

Given that immigrants from countries of high gastric cancer, including Asian Americans and Hispanics, comprise the vast majority of population growth in the United States, the public health implications are enormous if we continue to be complacent on gastric cancer prevention and early detection efforts.

As the fifth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer related deaths, based on recent studies and your personal experiences as a medical practitioner, also considering the gastric cancer does not cause symptoms until it is in the advanced stage, what are your recommendations as it relates to early detection and improving gastric cancer related outcomes?

Dr. Shah: The first step in my opinion, is recognizing that gastric cancer disproportionately affects certain populations in the US like I mentioned, especially racial and ethnic minorities and other under-represented populations, including US veterans. As a VA clinician and a VA investigator, we see that risk factors for gastric cancer, including H. pylori, disproportionately affect our veterans. The reasons are not fully understood but might relate to differential risk factors and exposures among veterans compared to civilian populations.

Gastric cancer is potentially preventable but is almost certainly curable if detected at an early stage, which really provides the rationale for risk-based screening. Unfortunately, gastric cancer has not been a research priority and there are currently no prospective trials investigating patient outcomes associated with screening versus no screening, nor studies investigating surveillance versus no surveillance of conditions like atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia or  defining appropriate surveillance and screening intervals.  The AGA recently published guidelines and clinical practice updates for intestinal metaplasia and atrophic gastritis management. But one common thread that these documents specifically called attention to, was the lack of high-quality data informing practice, especially practice in the United States. Other research priority areas include risk factors and risk stratification algorithms both for incident and fatal gastric cancer, as well as progression of atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. Having a better understanding of these factors would really help to fine tune our algorithms, and potentially identify factors that can even be intervened on to halt progression.

The last point that I'll highlight actually relates to non-H. pylori associated gastric cancer. We spend a lot of time focused on H. pylori associated gastric cancer, but an increasing number of gastric cancers are being diagnosed in people without evidence of H. pylori infection. Better understanding the interaction between genetic and environmental triggers and how this differs from H. pylori associated gastric cancer is critical to our approach to control and prevention since there certainly could be important nuances.

Dr. Shailja Shah is a gastroenterologist and clinical researcher at VA San Diego and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Shah leads a multidisciplinary research program anchored in defining non-genetic, genetic, and systems-level determinants of H. pylori treatment- and disease-related clinical outcomes, including gastric cancer, among high-risk populations. She is also actively involved in research and public policy initiatives to promote gastric cancer prevention and early detection efforts. Dr. Shah’s current and prior sources of funding include the US Dept of Veterans Affairs, AHRQ, NIH, and the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

As a gastroenterologist and physician scientist at UCSD/VA San Diego and Moores Cancer Center, when you think about early detection and surveillance of gastric cancer, what are some of the signs and symptoms you look for and how would you factor in risk-based screenings?

Dr. Shah: In the United States, gastric cancer is overlooked because it is thought of as a rare cancer when, in fact, it's more common than esophageal cancer and in certain groups even approaches rates of colorectal cancer. This is important because we have clear guidelines on who to screen for esophageal and colorectal cancer, but we don't have these guidelines for gastric cancer.

The majority of gastric cancer cases in the United States is non-cardia gastric cancer, which refers to the location in the stomach that this type of cancer occurs. This is in comparison to gastric cancer of the cardia which makes up a much smaller percentage. I mention this up front because the risk factor profiles for these two cancers based on anatomic location are different. Cardia gastric cancer mostly tracks with risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma while non-cardia gastric cancer is more common in non-white groups who share a disproportionate burden—with some groups as much as 13.5-fold higher than non-Hispanic whites.

The key to the discussion of risk-based screening for non-cardia gastric cancer is that gastric cancer is typically asymptomatic or presents with only non-specific symptoms until it's in the more advanced stages. There's no cure for gastric cancer once it is in this advanced stage, which is really when symptoms prompt the diagnostic workup. When gastric cancer is caught in the early stage where it is asymptomatic or associated with non-specific symptoms that might not prompt an immediate diagnostic workup—this is the stage that resection would be curative.

There are countries such as Japan and South Korea where endoscopic screening for gastric cancer routinely occurs. This has translated into significant reductions in gastric cancer mortality, although notably has not substantially decreased the actual incidence of cancer. This again suggests that the benefit is early detection and the opportunity for curative resection—which can be accomplished either endoscopically or surgically. The United States population overall is not universally high risk for gastric cancer; however, there are certain identifiable high-risk groups who might benefit from endoscopy for early detection. These include non-white groups and immigrants from high risk countries for gastric cancer, people with a family history of gastric cancer, as well as people with gastric precancerous changes such as atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. These precancerous changes most often are the result of chronic H. pylori infection.

We don't have very precise risk stratification models, and this is a much-needed area of research. We do, however, have evidence from cost-effectiveness analyses that upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening at the time of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening might be cost effective for non-white race and ethnic groups. At the very least, data from these modeling studies can form a starting point when we think of risk-based screening; ideally, we will have data from prospective studies to guide our approach to gastric cancer screening.

Since H. pylori is one of the strongest risk factors for non-cardia gastric cancer, what is your detailed approach to diagnosis and management?

Dr. Shah: H. pylori is a gram-negative bacterium and, globally, it is the most common chronic bacterial infection. Some studies estimate that over half the world's population is infected with H. pylori. It is difficult to get a precise estimate of the global burden of H. pylori, since many times this infection is asymptomatic and it is not one that is routinely screened for in most parts of the world, including the United States. Generally, testing for H. pylori is triggered by GI symptoms such as dyspepsia, abdominal discomfort, or in patients who don't have symptoms, the things that might trigger testing would be a family history of gastric cancer, unexplained iron deficiency, long term NSAID use, and a few other situations.

It is important to diagnose H. pylori because chronic untreated infection is associated with gastric inflammation, which in some cases can progress to loss of the normal gastric glands, a condition known as atrophic gastritis, and, if replaced by intestinal-type tissue, intestinal metaplasia. Such conditions are associated with significantly higher risk of gastric dysplasia and cancer, particularly if there is ongoing H. pylori infection. This stepwise cascade from chronic gastritis to atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and intestinal-type gastric adenocarcinoma is known as the correa cascade, for which H. pylori is the most common trigger.

We know that H. pylori eradication with antibiotics and high dose acid suppression does improve that inflammation and reduces the risk of gastric cancer. But the key here is that the biggest benefit of H. pylori eradication is eradicating H. pylori prior to the development severe atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. Therefore, simply testing and treating for H. pylori is not enough for gastric cancer prevention since some people might already have these advanced changes, since these typically don't cause symptoms. This forms the basis for endoscopic surveillance of these precancerous conditions, which is detailed in the most recent AGA guidelines and clinical practice update on intestinal metaplasia and atrophic gastritis, respectively.

H. pylori eradication still a cornerstone of gastric cancer prevention and risk reduction. Careful treatment selection and ensuring that eradication is confirmed warrants emphasis, particularly in the face of rising rates of H. pylori eradication failure. My key takeaway points for H. pylori eradication therapy is that prior to prescribing treatment, it's very important to review patients prior antibiotic exposures specifically macrolides and fluoroquinolones, since patients who have had treatment with these antibiotics for any condition are more likely to be colonized with resistant H. pylori strains. Clarithromycin-triple therapy should not be used unless patients are confirmed to be colonized with clarithromycin susceptible H. pylori. Bismuth-based quadruple therapy is really the preferred first line treatment instead of clarithromycin-based triple therapy given the high rates of clarithromycin resistance. It's also important to provide patients with anticipatory guidance regarding both the importance of completing the full course, as well as some expected possible side effects of antibiotics such as GI upset, nausea. The other tenant therapy is ensuring appropriate gastric acid suppression, which is a point emphasized in the recently published AGA clinical practice update on H. pylori management. All patients should have repeat non-serological H. pylori testing to ensure that eradication was successful. To reduce false positive or false negative results, this repeat testing should be done at least 2-4 weeks after completion of therapy and with patients off PPI therapy for at least 1-2 weeks.

What have you found to be some of the key disparities in gastric cancer particularly as it pertains to the racial and ethnic groups in the United States?

Dr. Shah: Racial and ethnic differences in gastric cancer incidence is a defining factor for gastric cancer in the United States. Our team recently conducted a population-based analysis of the California Cancer Registry, which is one of, if not the largest and most diverse of the SEER cancer registries. The results of this study highlighted the disparity in risk of gastric cancer based on race/ethnicity. All non-white groups in the US had a significantly higher risk of non-cardia gastric cancer compared to non-Hispanic whites. This was particularly striking in the age group that we generally consider for cancer screening, where there was anywhere from 2-fold up to 13.5-fold higher risk of non-cardia gastric cancer compared to the reference non-Hispanic whites. In some of these groups for example, Korean American men above the age of 50, these rates were on par with colorectal cancer rates. Even more concerning, it is possible that these estimates are actually underestimating the true burden of disease, since early cancer is asymptomatic most of the time and might go undiagnosed in the absence of screening.

We also know that immigrants from countries where gastric cancer incidence is high, also retain that increased risk and mortality even when they immigrate to countries gastric cancer incidence is low overall. Admittedly, this risk varies depending on immigrant generation and level of acculturation, including dietary practices, and other factors. The risk is observed to decrease over subsequent generations and depending on acculturation, which underscores opportunities for research into interventions and initiatives to address modifiable risk factors.

Given that immigrants from countries of high gastric cancer, including Asian Americans and Hispanics, comprise the vast majority of population growth in the United States, the public health implications are enormous if we continue to be complacent on gastric cancer prevention and early detection efforts.

As the fifth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer related deaths, based on recent studies and your personal experiences as a medical practitioner, also considering the gastric cancer does not cause symptoms until it is in the advanced stage, what are your recommendations as it relates to early detection and improving gastric cancer related outcomes?

Dr. Shah: The first step in my opinion, is recognizing that gastric cancer disproportionately affects certain populations in the US like I mentioned, especially racial and ethnic minorities and other under-represented populations, including US veterans. As a VA clinician and a VA investigator, we see that risk factors for gastric cancer, including H. pylori, disproportionately affect our veterans. The reasons are not fully understood but might relate to differential risk factors and exposures among veterans compared to civilian populations.

Gastric cancer is potentially preventable but is almost certainly curable if detected at an early stage, which really provides the rationale for risk-based screening. Unfortunately, gastric cancer has not been a research priority and there are currently no prospective trials investigating patient outcomes associated with screening versus no screening, nor studies investigating surveillance versus no surveillance of conditions like atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia or  defining appropriate surveillance and screening intervals.  The AGA recently published guidelines and clinical practice updates for intestinal metaplasia and atrophic gastritis management. But one common thread that these documents specifically called attention to, was the lack of high-quality data informing practice, especially practice in the United States. Other research priority areas include risk factors and risk stratification algorithms both for incident and fatal gastric cancer, as well as progression of atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. Having a better understanding of these factors would really help to fine tune our algorithms, and potentially identify factors that can even be intervened on to halt progression.

The last point that I'll highlight actually relates to non-H. pylori associated gastric cancer. We spend a lot of time focused on H. pylori associated gastric cancer, but an increasing number of gastric cancers are being diagnosed in people without evidence of H. pylori infection. Better understanding the interaction between genetic and environmental triggers and how this differs from H. pylori associated gastric cancer is critical to our approach to control and prevention since there certainly could be important nuances.

Dr. Shailja Shah is a gastroenterologist and clinical researcher at VA San Diego and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Shah leads a multidisciplinary research program anchored in defining non-genetic, genetic, and systems-level determinants of H. pylori treatment- and disease-related clinical outcomes, including gastric cancer, among high-risk populations. She is also actively involved in research and public policy initiatives to promote gastric cancer prevention and early detection efforts. Dr. Shah’s current and prior sources of funding include the US Dept of Veterans Affairs, AHRQ, NIH, and the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

As a gastroenterologist and physician scientist at UCSD/VA San Diego and Moores Cancer Center, when you think about early detection and surveillance of gastric cancer, what are some of the signs and symptoms you look for and how would you factor in risk-based screenings?

Dr. Shah: In the United States, gastric cancer is overlooked because it is thought of as a rare cancer when, in fact, it's more common than esophageal cancer and in certain groups even approaches rates of colorectal cancer. This is important because we have clear guidelines on who to screen for esophageal and colorectal cancer, but we don't have these guidelines for gastric cancer.

The majority of gastric cancer cases in the United States is non-cardia gastric cancer, which refers to the location in the stomach that this type of cancer occurs. This is in comparison to gastric cancer of the cardia which makes up a much smaller percentage. I mention this up front because the risk factor profiles for these two cancers based on anatomic location are different. Cardia gastric cancer mostly tracks with risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma while non-cardia gastric cancer is more common in non-white groups who share a disproportionate burden—with some groups as much as 13.5-fold higher than non-Hispanic whites.

The key to the discussion of risk-based screening for non-cardia gastric cancer is that gastric cancer is typically asymptomatic or presents with only non-specific symptoms until it's in the more advanced stages. There's no cure for gastric cancer once it is in this advanced stage, which is really when symptoms prompt the diagnostic workup. When gastric cancer is caught in the early stage where it is asymptomatic or associated with non-specific symptoms that might not prompt an immediate diagnostic workup—this is the stage that resection would be curative.

There are countries such as Japan and South Korea where endoscopic screening for gastric cancer routinely occurs. This has translated into significant reductions in gastric cancer mortality, although notably has not substantially decreased the actual incidence of cancer. This again suggests that the benefit is early detection and the opportunity for curative resection—which can be accomplished either endoscopically or surgically. The United States population overall is not universally high risk for gastric cancer; however, there are certain identifiable high-risk groups who might benefit from endoscopy for early detection. These include non-white groups and immigrants from high risk countries for gastric cancer, people with a family history of gastric cancer, as well as people with gastric precancerous changes such as atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. These precancerous changes most often are the result of chronic H. pylori infection.

We don't have very precise risk stratification models, and this is a much-needed area of research. We do, however, have evidence from cost-effectiveness analyses that upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening at the time of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening might be cost effective for non-white race and ethnic groups. At the very least, data from these modeling studies can form a starting point when we think of risk-based screening; ideally, we will have data from prospective studies to guide our approach to gastric cancer screening.

Since H. pylori is one of the strongest risk factors for non-cardia gastric cancer, what is your detailed approach to diagnosis and management?

Dr. Shah: H. pylori is a gram-negative bacterium and, globally, it is the most common chronic bacterial infection. Some studies estimate that over half the world's population is infected with H. pylori. It is difficult to get a precise estimate of the global burden of H. pylori, since many times this infection is asymptomatic and it is not one that is routinely screened for in most parts of the world, including the United States. Generally, testing for H. pylori is triggered by GI symptoms such as dyspepsia, abdominal discomfort, or in patients who don't have symptoms, the things that might trigger testing would be a family history of gastric cancer, unexplained iron deficiency, long term NSAID use, and a few other situations.

It is important to diagnose H. pylori because chronic untreated infection is associated with gastric inflammation, which in some cases can progress to loss of the normal gastric glands, a condition known as atrophic gastritis, and, if replaced by intestinal-type tissue, intestinal metaplasia. Such conditions are associated with significantly higher risk of gastric dysplasia and cancer, particularly if there is ongoing H. pylori infection. This stepwise cascade from chronic gastritis to atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and intestinal-type gastric adenocarcinoma is known as the correa cascade, for which H. pylori is the most common trigger.

We know that H. pylori eradication with antibiotics and high dose acid suppression does improve that inflammation and reduces the risk of gastric cancer. But the key here is that the biggest benefit of H. pylori eradication is eradicating H. pylori prior to the development severe atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. Therefore, simply testing and treating for H. pylori is not enough for gastric cancer prevention since some people might already have these advanced changes, since these typically don't cause symptoms. This forms the basis for endoscopic surveillance of these precancerous conditions, which is detailed in the most recent AGA guidelines and clinical practice update on intestinal metaplasia and atrophic gastritis, respectively.

H. pylori eradication still a cornerstone of gastric cancer prevention and risk reduction. Careful treatment selection and ensuring that eradication is confirmed warrants emphasis, particularly in the face of rising rates of H. pylori eradication failure. My key takeaway points for H. pylori eradication therapy is that prior to prescribing treatment, it's very important to review patients prior antibiotic exposures specifically macrolides and fluoroquinolones, since patients who have had treatment with these antibiotics for any condition are more likely to be colonized with resistant H. pylori strains. Clarithromycin-triple therapy should not be used unless patients are confirmed to be colonized with clarithromycin susceptible H. pylori. Bismuth-based quadruple therapy is really the preferred first line treatment instead of clarithromycin-based triple therapy given the high rates of clarithromycin resistance. It's also important to provide patients with anticipatory guidance regarding both the importance of completing the full course, as well as some expected possible side effects of antibiotics such as GI upset, nausea. The other tenant therapy is ensuring appropriate gastric acid suppression, which is a point emphasized in the recently published AGA clinical practice update on H. pylori management. All patients should have repeat non-serological H. pylori testing to ensure that eradication was successful. To reduce false positive or false negative results, this repeat testing should be done at least 2-4 weeks after completion of therapy and with patients off PPI therapy for at least 1-2 weeks.

What have you found to be some of the key disparities in gastric cancer particularly as it pertains to the racial and ethnic groups in the United States?

Dr. Shah: Racial and ethnic differences in gastric cancer incidence is a defining factor for gastric cancer in the United States. Our team recently conducted a population-based analysis of the California Cancer Registry, which is one of, if not the largest and most diverse of the SEER cancer registries. The results of this study highlighted the disparity in risk of gastric cancer based on race/ethnicity. All non-white groups in the US had a significantly higher risk of non-cardia gastric cancer compared to non-Hispanic whites. This was particularly striking in the age group that we generally consider for cancer screening, where there was anywhere from 2-fold up to 13.5-fold higher risk of non-cardia gastric cancer compared to the reference non-Hispanic whites. In some of these groups for example, Korean American men above the age of 50, these rates were on par with colorectal cancer rates. Even more concerning, it is possible that these estimates are actually underestimating the true burden of disease, since early cancer is asymptomatic most of the time and might go undiagnosed in the absence of screening.

We also know that immigrants from countries where gastric cancer incidence is high, also retain that increased risk and mortality even when they immigrate to countries gastric cancer incidence is low overall. Admittedly, this risk varies depending on immigrant generation and level of acculturation, including dietary practices, and other factors. The risk is observed to decrease over subsequent generations and depending on acculturation, which underscores opportunities for research into interventions and initiatives to address modifiable risk factors.

Given that immigrants from countries of high gastric cancer, including Asian Americans and Hispanics, comprise the vast majority of population growth in the United States, the public health implications are enormous if we continue to be complacent on gastric cancer prevention and early detection efforts.

As the fifth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer related deaths, based on recent studies and your personal experiences as a medical practitioner, also considering the gastric cancer does not cause symptoms until it is in the advanced stage, what are your recommendations as it relates to early detection and improving gastric cancer related outcomes?

Dr. Shah: The first step in my opinion, is recognizing that gastric cancer disproportionately affects certain populations in the US like I mentioned, especially racial and ethnic minorities and other under-represented populations, including US veterans. As a VA clinician and a VA investigator, we see that risk factors for gastric cancer, including H. pylori, disproportionately affect our veterans. The reasons are not fully understood but might relate to differential risk factors and exposures among veterans compared to civilian populations.

Gastric cancer is potentially preventable but is almost certainly curable if detected at an early stage, which really provides the rationale for risk-based screening. Unfortunately, gastric cancer has not been a research priority and there are currently no prospective trials investigating patient outcomes associated with screening versus no screening, nor studies investigating surveillance versus no surveillance of conditions like atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia or  defining appropriate surveillance and screening intervals.  The AGA recently published guidelines and clinical practice updates for intestinal metaplasia and atrophic gastritis management. But one common thread that these documents specifically called attention to, was the lack of high-quality data informing practice, especially practice in the United States. Other research priority areas include risk factors and risk stratification algorithms both for incident and fatal gastric cancer, as well as progression of atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. Having a better understanding of these factors would really help to fine tune our algorithms, and potentially identify factors that can even be intervened on to halt progression.

The last point that I'll highlight actually relates to non-H. pylori associated gastric cancer. We spend a lot of time focused on H. pylori associated gastric cancer, but an increasing number of gastric cancers are being diagnosed in people without evidence of H. pylori infection. Better understanding the interaction between genetic and environmental triggers and how this differs from H. pylori associated gastric cancer is critical to our approach to control and prevention since there certainly could be important nuances.

Higher intake of vegetable fats from foods such as olive oil and nuts is associated with a lower risk for stroke, whereas people who eat more animal fats, especially processed red meats, may have a higher stroke risk, observational findings suggest.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

In a study of more than 117,000 health professionals who were followed for 27 years, those whose diet was in the highest quintile for intake of vegetable fat had a 12% lower risk for stroke, compared with those who consumed the least amount of vegetable fats.

Conversely, having the highest intake of animal fat from nondairy sources was associated with a 16% increased risk of stroke.

Fenglei Wang, PhD, presented these results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“Our findings support the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and dietary recommendations by AHA,” Dr. Wang, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, told this news organization.

“The main sources of vegetable fat have a large overlap with polyunsaturated fat, such as vegetable oils, nuts, walnuts, and peanut butter,” Dr. Wang noted, adding that fish, especially fatty fish, is a main source of polyunsaturated fat and is recommended for cardiovascular health.

“We would recommend that people reduce consumption of red and processed meat, minimize fatty parts of unprocessed meat if consumed, and replace lard or tallow (beef fat) with nontropical vegetable oils, such as olive oil, corn, or soybean oils in cooking, to lower their stroke risk,” she said.

Moreover, although the results from this study of dietary fat are informative, Dr. Wang continued, “there are other dietary factors (fruits, vegetables, salt, alcohol, et cetera), and lifestyle factors (physical activity, smoking, et cetera), that are associated with stroke risk and worthy of attention as well.”

“Many processed meats are high in salt and saturated fat, and low in vegetable fat,” Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, an AHA spokesperson who was not involved with this research, noted in a press release.

“Research shows that replacing processed meat with other protein sources, particularly plant sources, is associated with lower death rates,” added Dr. Lichtenstein, the Stanley N. Gershoff professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University in Boston, and lead author of the AHA’s 2021 scientific statement, Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health.

“Key features of a heart-healthy diet pattern,” she summarized, “are to balance calorie intake with calorie needs to achieve and maintain a healthy weight; choose whole grains, lean and plant-based protein, and a variety of fruits and vegetables; limit salt, sugar, animal fat, processed foods, and alcohol; and apply this guidance regardless of where the food is prepared or consumed.”
 

Replace processed meat with plant proteins

The focus on stroke in this study “is important” because, traditionally, studies of diet and cardiovascular health have focused on coronary heart disease, Andrew Mente, PhD, who also was not involved in this research, said in an email to this news organization.

“Overall, the take-home message from the study is that replacing processed meat with plant sources of protein in the diet is probably beneficial,” Dr. Mente, associate professor, health research methods, evidence, and impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said.

The finding that people who ate the most vegetable fat had a modest 12% lower risk of stroke than those who ate the least vegetable fat “points to protective effects of foods like seeds, nuts, vegetables, and olive oil, which has been shown previously,” he continued.

The highest quintile of total red meat intake was associated with an 8% higher risk for stroke, but this was driven mainly by processed red meat (which was associated with a 12% higher risk for stroke). These findings are “generally consistent with cohort studies showing that processed meat, as with most highly processed foods for that matter, are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events,” Dr. Mente noted.

“Surprisingly, dairy products (such as cheese, butter, or milk) in the study were not connected with the risk of stroke,” he added. This finding differs from results of meta-analyses of multiple cohort studies of dairy intake and stroke and the recent large international PURE study, which showed that dairy intake was associated with a lower risk for stroke.

“What is needed to move the field forward,” according to Dr. Mente, “is to employ new methods that use cutting-edge technology to study nutritional biomarkers and health outcomes.”

“When dealing with modest associations as usually encountered in nutrition, it is a challenge to make causal connections based on dietary questionnaires, which are fraught with measurement error,” he added. “The use of novel methods is where the field is headed.”
 

Total dietary fat, different types, and different food sources

Dr. Wang and colleagues investigated how total dietary fat, different types of fat, and fats from different foods were associated with incident stroke in 73,867 women in the 1984-2016 Nurses’ Health Study and 43,269 men who participated in the 1986-2016 Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

The participants had an average age of 50 years, 63% were women, and 97% were White. They replied to food-frequency questionnaires every 4 years.

Total red meat included beef, pork, or lamb (as a main dish or in sandwiches or mixed dishes) as well as processed red meats (such as bacon, sausage, bologna, hot dogs, and salami).

Animal fat sources included meat, beef tallow, lard, and full-fat dairy products, such as full-fat milk and cheese.

The median percentage of total daily calories from different sources of fat ranged from 10% to 20% for vegetable fat, 3% to 10% for dairy fat, and 7% to 17% for nondairy animal fat (for lowest to highest quintiles).

The median percentage of total daily calories from different types of fat ranged from 5% to 8% for polyunsaturated fat, 4% to 7% for n-6 polyunsaturated fat, 9% to 15% for monounsaturated fat, 8% to 14% for saturated fat, and 1% to 2% for trans fat.

During follow-up, there were 6,189 incident strokes, including 2,967 ischemic strokes and 814 hemorrhagic strokes.

The researchers found that intake in the highest quintile of vegetable fat was associated with a lower risk for total stroke, compared with the lowest quintile (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.96; P for trend < .001).

Similarly, the highest intake of polyunsaturated fat was also associated with lower total stroke (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P for trend = .002). 

Highest intake of nondairy animal fat, however, was associated with an increased risk for total stroke (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; P for trend < .001). They observed “similar associations” for ischemic stroke, but the only positive association for nondairy animal fat was with hemorrhagic stroke, the abstract notes.   

The risk for stroke was lower by 9% per serving per day for vegetable oil but increased by 8% and 12%, respectively, per serving of total red meat or processed red meat.

The association for vegetable oil was attenuated after adjustment for vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, whereas adjustment for nondairy animal fat rendered the association for total red meat and processed red meat nonsignificant. 

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wang has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Mente has received research funding from the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the National Dairy Council to analyze data on dairy consumption and health outcomes in the PURE study, which is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and more than 70 other sources (government and pharmaceutical).

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

Higher intake of vegetable fats from foods such as olive oil and nuts is associated with a lower risk for stroke, whereas people who eat more animal fats, especially processed red meats, may have a higher stroke risk, observational findings suggest.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

In a study of more than 117,000 health professionals who were followed for 27 years, those whose diet was in the highest quintile for intake of vegetable fat had a 12% lower risk for stroke, compared with those who consumed the least amount of vegetable fats.

Conversely, having the highest intake of animal fat from nondairy sources was associated with a 16% increased risk of stroke.

Fenglei Wang, PhD, presented these results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“Our findings support the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and dietary recommendations by AHA,” Dr. Wang, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, told this news organization.

“The main sources of vegetable fat have a large overlap with polyunsaturated fat, such as vegetable oils, nuts, walnuts, and peanut butter,” Dr. Wang noted, adding that fish, especially fatty fish, is a main source of polyunsaturated fat and is recommended for cardiovascular health.

“We would recommend that people reduce consumption of red and processed meat, minimize fatty parts of unprocessed meat if consumed, and replace lard or tallow (beef fat) with nontropical vegetable oils, such as olive oil, corn, or soybean oils in cooking, to lower their stroke risk,” she said.

Moreover, although the results from this study of dietary fat are informative, Dr. Wang continued, “there are other dietary factors (fruits, vegetables, salt, alcohol, et cetera), and lifestyle factors (physical activity, smoking, et cetera), that are associated with stroke risk and worthy of attention as well.”

“Many processed meats are high in salt and saturated fat, and low in vegetable fat,” Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, an AHA spokesperson who was not involved with this research, noted in a press release.

“Research shows that replacing processed meat with other protein sources, particularly plant sources, is associated with lower death rates,” added Dr. Lichtenstein, the Stanley N. Gershoff professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University in Boston, and lead author of the AHA’s 2021 scientific statement, Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health.

“Key features of a heart-healthy diet pattern,” she summarized, “are to balance calorie intake with calorie needs to achieve and maintain a healthy weight; choose whole grains, lean and plant-based protein, and a variety of fruits and vegetables; limit salt, sugar, animal fat, processed foods, and alcohol; and apply this guidance regardless of where the food is prepared or consumed.”
 

Replace processed meat with plant proteins

The focus on stroke in this study “is important” because, traditionally, studies of diet and cardiovascular health have focused on coronary heart disease, Andrew Mente, PhD, who also was not involved in this research, said in an email to this news organization.

“Overall, the take-home message from the study is that replacing processed meat with plant sources of protein in the diet is probably beneficial,” Dr. Mente, associate professor, health research methods, evidence, and impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said.

The finding that people who ate the most vegetable fat had a modest 12% lower risk of stroke than those who ate the least vegetable fat “points to protective effects of foods like seeds, nuts, vegetables, and olive oil, which has been shown previously,” he continued.

The highest quintile of total red meat intake was associated with an 8% higher risk for stroke, but this was driven mainly by processed red meat (which was associated with a 12% higher risk for stroke). These findings are “generally consistent with cohort studies showing that processed meat, as with most highly processed foods for that matter, are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events,” Dr. Mente noted.

“Surprisingly, dairy products (such as cheese, butter, or milk) in the study were not connected with the risk of stroke,” he added. This finding differs from results of meta-analyses of multiple cohort studies of dairy intake and stroke and the recent large international PURE study, which showed that dairy intake was associated with a lower risk for stroke.

“What is needed to move the field forward,” according to Dr. Mente, “is to employ new methods that use cutting-edge technology to study nutritional biomarkers and health outcomes.”

“When dealing with modest associations as usually encountered in nutrition, it is a challenge to make causal connections based on dietary questionnaires, which are fraught with measurement error,” he added. “The use of novel methods is where the field is headed.”
 

Total dietary fat, different types, and different food sources

Dr. Wang and colleagues investigated how total dietary fat, different types of fat, and fats from different foods were associated with incident stroke in 73,867 women in the 1984-2016 Nurses’ Health Study and 43,269 men who participated in the 1986-2016 Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

The participants had an average age of 50 years, 63% were women, and 97% were White. They replied to food-frequency questionnaires every 4 years.

Total red meat included beef, pork, or lamb (as a main dish or in sandwiches or mixed dishes) as well as processed red meats (such as bacon, sausage, bologna, hot dogs, and salami).

Animal fat sources included meat, beef tallow, lard, and full-fat dairy products, such as full-fat milk and cheese.

The median percentage of total daily calories from different sources of fat ranged from 10% to 20% for vegetable fat, 3% to 10% for dairy fat, and 7% to 17% for nondairy animal fat (for lowest to highest quintiles).

The median percentage of total daily calories from different types of fat ranged from 5% to 8% for polyunsaturated fat, 4% to 7% for n-6 polyunsaturated fat, 9% to 15% for monounsaturated fat, 8% to 14% for saturated fat, and 1% to 2% for trans fat.

During follow-up, there were 6,189 incident strokes, including 2,967 ischemic strokes and 814 hemorrhagic strokes.

The researchers found that intake in the highest quintile of vegetable fat was associated with a lower risk for total stroke, compared with the lowest quintile (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.96; P for trend < .001).

Similarly, the highest intake of polyunsaturated fat was also associated with lower total stroke (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P for trend = .002). 

Highest intake of nondairy animal fat, however, was associated with an increased risk for total stroke (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; P for trend < .001). They observed “similar associations” for ischemic stroke, but the only positive association for nondairy animal fat was with hemorrhagic stroke, the abstract notes.   

The risk for stroke was lower by 9% per serving per day for vegetable oil but increased by 8% and 12%, respectively, per serving of total red meat or processed red meat.

The association for vegetable oil was attenuated after adjustment for vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, whereas adjustment for nondairy animal fat rendered the association for total red meat and processed red meat nonsignificant. 

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wang has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Mente has received research funding from the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the National Dairy Council to analyze data on dairy consumption and health outcomes in the PURE study, which is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and more than 70 other sources (government and pharmaceutical).

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

Higher intake of vegetable fats from foods such as olive oil and nuts is associated with a lower risk for stroke, whereas people who eat more animal fats, especially processed red meats, may have a higher stroke risk, observational findings suggest.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

In a study of more than 117,000 health professionals who were followed for 27 years, those whose diet was in the highest quintile for intake of vegetable fat had a 12% lower risk for stroke, compared with those who consumed the least amount of vegetable fats.

Conversely, having the highest intake of animal fat from nondairy sources was associated with a 16% increased risk of stroke.

Fenglei Wang, PhD, presented these results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“Our findings support the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and dietary recommendations by AHA,” Dr. Wang, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, told this news organization.

“The main sources of vegetable fat have a large overlap with polyunsaturated fat, such as vegetable oils, nuts, walnuts, and peanut butter,” Dr. Wang noted, adding that fish, especially fatty fish, is a main source of polyunsaturated fat and is recommended for cardiovascular health.

“We would recommend that people reduce consumption of red and processed meat, minimize fatty parts of unprocessed meat if consumed, and replace lard or tallow (beef fat) with nontropical vegetable oils, such as olive oil, corn, or soybean oils in cooking, to lower their stroke risk,” she said.

Moreover, although the results from this study of dietary fat are informative, Dr. Wang continued, “there are other dietary factors (fruits, vegetables, salt, alcohol, et cetera), and lifestyle factors (physical activity, smoking, et cetera), that are associated with stroke risk and worthy of attention as well.”

“Many processed meats are high in salt and saturated fat, and low in vegetable fat,” Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, an AHA spokesperson who was not involved with this research, noted in a press release.

“Research shows that replacing processed meat with other protein sources, particularly plant sources, is associated with lower death rates,” added Dr. Lichtenstein, the Stanley N. Gershoff professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University in Boston, and lead author of the AHA’s 2021 scientific statement, Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health.

“Key features of a heart-healthy diet pattern,” she summarized, “are to balance calorie intake with calorie needs to achieve and maintain a healthy weight; choose whole grains, lean and plant-based protein, and a variety of fruits and vegetables; limit salt, sugar, animal fat, processed foods, and alcohol; and apply this guidance regardless of where the food is prepared or consumed.”
 

Replace processed meat with plant proteins

The focus on stroke in this study “is important” because, traditionally, studies of diet and cardiovascular health have focused on coronary heart disease, Andrew Mente, PhD, who also was not involved in this research, said in an email to this news organization.

“Overall, the take-home message from the study is that replacing processed meat with plant sources of protein in the diet is probably beneficial,” Dr. Mente, associate professor, health research methods, evidence, and impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said.

The finding that people who ate the most vegetable fat had a modest 12% lower risk of stroke than those who ate the least vegetable fat “points to protective effects of foods like seeds, nuts, vegetables, and olive oil, which has been shown previously,” he continued.

The highest quintile of total red meat intake was associated with an 8% higher risk for stroke, but this was driven mainly by processed red meat (which was associated with a 12% higher risk for stroke). These findings are “generally consistent with cohort studies showing that processed meat, as with most highly processed foods for that matter, are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events,” Dr. Mente noted.

“Surprisingly, dairy products (such as cheese, butter, or milk) in the study were not connected with the risk of stroke,” he added. This finding differs from results of meta-analyses of multiple cohort studies of dairy intake and stroke and the recent large international PURE study, which showed that dairy intake was associated with a lower risk for stroke.

“What is needed to move the field forward,” according to Dr. Mente, “is to employ new methods that use cutting-edge technology to study nutritional biomarkers and health outcomes.”

“When dealing with modest associations as usually encountered in nutrition, it is a challenge to make causal connections based on dietary questionnaires, which are fraught with measurement error,” he added. “The use of novel methods is where the field is headed.”
 

Total dietary fat, different types, and different food sources

Dr. Wang and colleagues investigated how total dietary fat, different types of fat, and fats from different foods were associated with incident stroke in 73,867 women in the 1984-2016 Nurses’ Health Study and 43,269 men who participated in the 1986-2016 Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

The participants had an average age of 50 years, 63% were women, and 97% were White. They replied to food-frequency questionnaires every 4 years.

Total red meat included beef, pork, or lamb (as a main dish or in sandwiches or mixed dishes) as well as processed red meats (such as bacon, sausage, bologna, hot dogs, and salami).

Animal fat sources included meat, beef tallow, lard, and full-fat dairy products, such as full-fat milk and cheese.

The median percentage of total daily calories from different sources of fat ranged from 10% to 20% for vegetable fat, 3% to 10% for dairy fat, and 7% to 17% for nondairy animal fat (for lowest to highest quintiles).

The median percentage of total daily calories from different types of fat ranged from 5% to 8% for polyunsaturated fat, 4% to 7% for n-6 polyunsaturated fat, 9% to 15% for monounsaturated fat, 8% to 14% for saturated fat, and 1% to 2% for trans fat.

During follow-up, there were 6,189 incident strokes, including 2,967 ischemic strokes and 814 hemorrhagic strokes.

The researchers found that intake in the highest quintile of vegetable fat was associated with a lower risk for total stroke, compared with the lowest quintile (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.96; P for trend < .001).

Similarly, the highest intake of polyunsaturated fat was also associated with lower total stroke (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P for trend = .002). 

Highest intake of nondairy animal fat, however, was associated with an increased risk for total stroke (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; P for trend < .001). They observed “similar associations” for ischemic stroke, but the only positive association for nondairy animal fat was with hemorrhagic stroke, the abstract notes.   

The risk for stroke was lower by 9% per serving per day for vegetable oil but increased by 8% and 12%, respectively, per serving of total red meat or processed red meat.

The association for vegetable oil was attenuated after adjustment for vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, whereas adjustment for nondairy animal fat rendered the association for total red meat and processed red meat nonsignificant. 

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wang has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Mente has received research funding from the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the National Dairy Council to analyze data on dairy consumption and health outcomes in the PURE study, which is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and more than 70 other sources (government and pharmaceutical).

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