Left-handed surgical residents and fellows reported persistent disorienting advice and stigma during training, according to a new study of 31 individuals from 15 US institutions.

“Surgical education is designed for the right-handed,” wrote Timothy J. Gilbert, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. Left-handed medical students “contend with instruments designed for right-handed use, perform worse on surgical skills assessments that are biased toward the right-handed, and are assumed to be right-handed by educators,” they said.

Challenges for left-handed medical students are not new. A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Surgical Education identified eight major issues for left-handed surgeons:

• Anxiety about laterality
• Lack of mentoring on lateral preference
• Difficulty handling traditional instruments
• Difficulty with minimally invasive instruments
• Inconvenience while assisting a right-handed person
• Pressure to change lateral preference
• Possible disadvantages with certain procedures
• Possible advantage situs inversus

Previous studies have shown reports of stigmatization and a lack of training and educational resources as barriers to improving the experience and fostering the skills of left-handed students, but the current data on the subjective experiences of left-handed students are limited, the authors said.

“Some of the members of the research team are left-handed, and I think their personal experience/understanding of the topic informed their desire to do projects within this space, since handedness is so thoroughly taken for granted by the right-handed majority,” Dr. Gilbert, who is right-handed, said in an interview. “It was important for our study to have parity between handedness to reduce bias in data interpretation,” he said. “In an era where much has been done to ensure equity between different groups, there’s not as much discussion about handedness within surgery as I believe there should be.”

In a new study published in Academic Medicine, the researchers recruited 31 self-identified left-handed surgical residents and fellows in six surgical specialties (general surgery, urology, plastic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery) and conducted semi-structured interviews between January 31, 2021, and June 20, 2021. The study population included 21 seniors (postgraduate year of 3 or higher), five juniors (postgraduate years 1 or 2), and five surgical fellows.

Overall, three themes surfaced from the participants’ educational experiences:

• Disorienting advice from faculty or residents
• Discouraging right-handed pressures and left-handed stigmatization
• Expression of the educational wishes of left-handed medical students

Conflicting Advice

The interviewees described feeling confused by conflicting advice about how to manage surgical procedures given their left-handedness, the researchers said. Some respondents reported being told to learn to do everything with the right hand; others were told to use their dominant hand (right or left) for fine motor skill elements but use the right hand for sewing.

Persistent Stigma and Switching

Survey respondents reported perceptions that others in the surgical setting were judgmental and inconsiderate; workshops involved demonstrations with a right-handed focus; and surgical technicians prepared needles that were loaded right-handed. “To minimize this negativity, participants often changed to their right hand,” the authors wrote. Some students who changed handedness reported an improved learning experience, in part because their handedness aligned with the instruments they used.

Educational Wish List

Study participants expressed the need for destigmatization of left-handedness in surgical through strategies including tangible mentorship, more granular and meaningful instruction, and normalization of left-handedness.

The study was limited by several factors including the focus only on surgical residents and fellows, with no left-handed medical students who pursued other specialties, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the retrospective design and potential bias from left-handed members of the research team, they said.

Notably, left-handed medical students reported negative experiences during training whether they operated with the right or left hand, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “From a strictly technical perspective, a left-handed medical student who is operatively left-handed will struggle to use hand-discordant tools in their dominant hand, whereas one who is operatively right-handed will struggle to use hand-concordant tools in their nondominant hand,” they said.

The researchers emphasized the need to consider the data in context; a nervous left-handed student who has been shown only right-handed tools and techniques and has not disclosed their left-handedness struggles when asked to close an incision may see themselves as the problem rather than the surgical education.

Takeaways to Improve Training

The current study showed the diversity of needs of left-handed surgical trainees and how more positive encouragement and support could improve their experiences, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

The strategies to improve training for left-handed medical students vary according to educational level, said Dr. Gilbert. “If you’re a surgical fellow or chief resident, you probably want more formal training, different tools, access to attendings who have experience performing an operation left-handed. If you’re a medical student, that is likely less important than feeling like you won’t be penalized of looked down upon for your handedness,” he said.

In the survey responses, “I at least was struck by how far a few accepting words could do when said in the right way at the right time,” he said.

“I think the most important takeaway is that educators should consider more what they say and do in the operating room to these junior students/trainees, as our data suggest even a single sentence at such a vulnerable point in time can push them into a choosing their handedness,” Dr. Gilbert said. “That’s not a small decision to make, and educators should be more thoughtful when engaging in the topic.”

Also, educators should offer left-handed resources during clerkship orientations on techniques such as knot-tying, he said. “This normalized handedness and may make students more comfortable with themselves in the operating room.”

Finally, “educators should be able to teach medical students the level-appropriate skills in either hand. If a medical student asks how to tie a knot or throw a stitch in their left hand, the educator should be able to demonstrate this to them effectively,” Dr. Gilbert added.

More research is needed to understand the needs and wants of left-handed medical students, including those who do not pursue surgery and of the skills of the residents and attendings who are tasked with educating these students, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

“Eventually, the goal is to implement concrete changes to improve resources for these students, but I think the most effective way to design these resources is to fully grasp the desires and concerns of all involved parties,” he said.

Residency Director Perspective

“We are increasingly sensitive to individual differences, but for some reason, left-handedness is a blind spot, although 10% of the population is left-handed,” said Stephen M. Kavic, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in an interview.

“Interestingly, we do not ask handedness on residency applications, suggesting that it may be viewed as a negative trait in the selection process,” said Dr. Kavic, who also serves as program director of residency in surgery at the University of Maryland.

“While not left-handed myself, as Program Director, I have been tasked with training left-handed residents, and I appreciate the challenges,” Dr. Kavic said. “Our department is about 6% left-handed. Most left-handed surgeons are far more comfortable with their nondominant hand than right-handers are with theirs,” he noted. “We do have left-handed instruments available, but the ratio of sets is easily 100:1 right to left.”

With regard to the current study, Dr. Kavic said it was understandable that left-handed medical students feel stigmatized. A message for educators is to not presume right-handedness; instead, ask students about the hand preference on first meeting, and then training will be more inclusive, he said.

“There is a fundamental difference in mirror image training when a righty tries to teach a lefty. How do we do this better and in a standardized fashion? This article clearly shows that we still have a problem; now we must do the work to fix it,” Dr. Kavic said.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Left-handed surgical residents and fellows reported persistent disorienting advice and stigma during training, according to a new study of 31 individuals from 15 US institutions.

“Surgical education is designed for the right-handed,” wrote Timothy J. Gilbert, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. Left-handed medical students “contend with instruments designed for right-handed use, perform worse on surgical skills assessments that are biased toward the right-handed, and are assumed to be right-handed by educators,” they said.

Challenges for left-handed medical students are not new. A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Surgical Education identified eight major issues for left-handed surgeons:

• Anxiety about laterality
• Lack of mentoring on lateral preference
• Difficulty handling traditional instruments
• Difficulty with minimally invasive instruments
• Inconvenience while assisting a right-handed person
• Pressure to change lateral preference
• Possible disadvantages with certain procedures
• Possible advantage situs inversus

Previous studies have shown reports of stigmatization and a lack of training and educational resources as barriers to improving the experience and fostering the skills of left-handed students, but the current data on the subjective experiences of left-handed students are limited, the authors said.

“Some of the members of the research team are left-handed, and I think their personal experience/understanding of the topic informed their desire to do projects within this space, since handedness is so thoroughly taken for granted by the right-handed majority,” Dr. Gilbert, who is right-handed, said in an interview. “It was important for our study to have parity between handedness to reduce bias in data interpretation,” he said. “In an era where much has been done to ensure equity between different groups, there’s not as much discussion about handedness within surgery as I believe there should be.”

In a new study published in Academic Medicine, the researchers recruited 31 self-identified left-handed surgical residents and fellows in six surgical specialties (general surgery, urology, plastic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery) and conducted semi-structured interviews between January 31, 2021, and June 20, 2021. The study population included 21 seniors (postgraduate year of 3 or higher), five juniors (postgraduate years 1 or 2), and five surgical fellows.

Overall, three themes surfaced from the participants’ educational experiences:

• Disorienting advice from faculty or residents
• Discouraging right-handed pressures and left-handed stigmatization
• Expression of the educational wishes of left-handed medical students

Conflicting Advice

The interviewees described feeling confused by conflicting advice about how to manage surgical procedures given their left-handedness, the researchers said. Some respondents reported being told to learn to do everything with the right hand; others were told to use their dominant hand (right or left) for fine motor skill elements but use the right hand for sewing.

Persistent Stigma and Switching

Survey respondents reported perceptions that others in the surgical setting were judgmental and inconsiderate; workshops involved demonstrations with a right-handed focus; and surgical technicians prepared needles that were loaded right-handed. “To minimize this negativity, participants often changed to their right hand,” the authors wrote. Some students who changed handedness reported an improved learning experience, in part because their handedness aligned with the instruments they used.

Educational Wish List

Study participants expressed the need for destigmatization of left-handedness in surgical through strategies including tangible mentorship, more granular and meaningful instruction, and normalization of left-handedness.

The study was limited by several factors including the focus only on surgical residents and fellows, with no left-handed medical students who pursued other specialties, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the retrospective design and potential bias from left-handed members of the research team, they said.

Notably, left-handed medical students reported negative experiences during training whether they operated with the right or left hand, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “From a strictly technical perspective, a left-handed medical student who is operatively left-handed will struggle to use hand-discordant tools in their dominant hand, whereas one who is operatively right-handed will struggle to use hand-concordant tools in their nondominant hand,” they said.

The researchers emphasized the need to consider the data in context; a nervous left-handed student who has been shown only right-handed tools and techniques and has not disclosed their left-handedness struggles when asked to close an incision may see themselves as the problem rather than the surgical education.

Takeaways to Improve Training

The current study showed the diversity of needs of left-handed surgical trainees and how more positive encouragement and support could improve their experiences, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

The strategies to improve training for left-handed medical students vary according to educational level, said Dr. Gilbert. “If you’re a surgical fellow or chief resident, you probably want more formal training, different tools, access to attendings who have experience performing an operation left-handed. If you’re a medical student, that is likely less important than feeling like you won’t be penalized of looked down upon for your handedness,” he said.

In the survey responses, “I at least was struck by how far a few accepting words could do when said in the right way at the right time,” he said.

“I think the most important takeaway is that educators should consider more what they say and do in the operating room to these junior students/trainees, as our data suggest even a single sentence at such a vulnerable point in time can push them into a choosing their handedness,” Dr. Gilbert said. “That’s not a small decision to make, and educators should be more thoughtful when engaging in the topic.”

Also, educators should offer left-handed resources during clerkship orientations on techniques such as knot-tying, he said. “This normalized handedness and may make students more comfortable with themselves in the operating room.”

Finally, “educators should be able to teach medical students the level-appropriate skills in either hand. If a medical student asks how to tie a knot or throw a stitch in their left hand, the educator should be able to demonstrate this to them effectively,” Dr. Gilbert added.

More research is needed to understand the needs and wants of left-handed medical students, including those who do not pursue surgery and of the skills of the residents and attendings who are tasked with educating these students, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

“Eventually, the goal is to implement concrete changes to improve resources for these students, but I think the most effective way to design these resources is to fully grasp the desires and concerns of all involved parties,” he said.

Residency Director Perspective

“We are increasingly sensitive to individual differences, but for some reason, left-handedness is a blind spot, although 10% of the population is left-handed,” said Stephen M. Kavic, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in an interview.

“Interestingly, we do not ask handedness on residency applications, suggesting that it may be viewed as a negative trait in the selection process,” said Dr. Kavic, who also serves as program director of residency in surgery at the University of Maryland.

“While not left-handed myself, as Program Director, I have been tasked with training left-handed residents, and I appreciate the challenges,” Dr. Kavic said. “Our department is about 6% left-handed. Most left-handed surgeons are far more comfortable with their nondominant hand than right-handers are with theirs,” he noted. “We do have left-handed instruments available, but the ratio of sets is easily 100:1 right to left.”

With regard to the current study, Dr. Kavic said it was understandable that left-handed medical students feel stigmatized. A message for educators is to not presume right-handedness; instead, ask students about the hand preference on first meeting, and then training will be more inclusive, he said.

“There is a fundamental difference in mirror image training when a righty tries to teach a lefty. How do we do this better and in a standardized fashion? This article clearly shows that we still have a problem; now we must do the work to fix it,” Dr. Kavic said.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Left-handed surgical residents and fellows reported persistent disorienting advice and stigma during training, according to a new study of 31 individuals from 15 US institutions.

“Surgical education is designed for the right-handed,” wrote Timothy J. Gilbert, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. Left-handed medical students “contend with instruments designed for right-handed use, perform worse on surgical skills assessments that are biased toward the right-handed, and are assumed to be right-handed by educators,” they said.

Challenges for left-handed medical students are not new. A study published in 2010 in the Journal of Surgical Education identified eight major issues for left-handed surgeons:

• Anxiety about laterality
• Lack of mentoring on lateral preference
• Difficulty handling traditional instruments
• Difficulty with minimally invasive instruments
• Inconvenience while assisting a right-handed person
• Pressure to change lateral preference
• Possible disadvantages with certain procedures
• Possible advantage situs inversus

Previous studies have shown reports of stigmatization and a lack of training and educational resources as barriers to improving the experience and fostering the skills of left-handed students, but the current data on the subjective experiences of left-handed students are limited, the authors said.

“Some of the members of the research team are left-handed, and I think their personal experience/understanding of the topic informed their desire to do projects within this space, since handedness is so thoroughly taken for granted by the right-handed majority,” Dr. Gilbert, who is right-handed, said in an interview. “It was important for our study to have parity between handedness to reduce bias in data interpretation,” he said. “In an era where much has been done to ensure equity between different groups, there’s not as much discussion about handedness within surgery as I believe there should be.”

In a new study published in Academic Medicine, the researchers recruited 31 self-identified left-handed surgical residents and fellows in six surgical specialties (general surgery, urology, plastic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery) and conducted semi-structured interviews between January 31, 2021, and June 20, 2021. The study population included 21 seniors (postgraduate year of 3 or higher), five juniors (postgraduate years 1 or 2), and five surgical fellows.

Overall, three themes surfaced from the participants’ educational experiences:

• Disorienting advice from faculty or residents
• Discouraging right-handed pressures and left-handed stigmatization
• Expression of the educational wishes of left-handed medical students

Conflicting Advice

The interviewees described feeling confused by conflicting advice about how to manage surgical procedures given their left-handedness, the researchers said. Some respondents reported being told to learn to do everything with the right hand; others were told to use their dominant hand (right or left) for fine motor skill elements but use the right hand for sewing.

Persistent Stigma and Switching

Survey respondents reported perceptions that others in the surgical setting were judgmental and inconsiderate; workshops involved demonstrations with a right-handed focus; and surgical technicians prepared needles that were loaded right-handed. “To minimize this negativity, participants often changed to their right hand,” the authors wrote. Some students who changed handedness reported an improved learning experience, in part because their handedness aligned with the instruments they used.

Educational Wish List

Study participants expressed the need for destigmatization of left-handedness in surgical through strategies including tangible mentorship, more granular and meaningful instruction, and normalization of left-handedness.

The study was limited by several factors including the focus only on surgical residents and fellows, with no left-handed medical students who pursued other specialties, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the retrospective design and potential bias from left-handed members of the research team, they said.

Notably, left-handed medical students reported negative experiences during training whether they operated with the right or left hand, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “From a strictly technical perspective, a left-handed medical student who is operatively left-handed will struggle to use hand-discordant tools in their dominant hand, whereas one who is operatively right-handed will struggle to use hand-concordant tools in their nondominant hand,” they said.

The researchers emphasized the need to consider the data in context; a nervous left-handed student who has been shown only right-handed tools and techniques and has not disclosed their left-handedness struggles when asked to close an incision may see themselves as the problem rather than the surgical education.

Takeaways to Improve Training

The current study showed the diversity of needs of left-handed surgical trainees and how more positive encouragement and support could improve their experiences, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

The strategies to improve training for left-handed medical students vary according to educational level, said Dr. Gilbert. “If you’re a surgical fellow or chief resident, you probably want more formal training, different tools, access to attendings who have experience performing an operation left-handed. If you’re a medical student, that is likely less important than feeling like you won’t be penalized of looked down upon for your handedness,” he said.

In the survey responses, “I at least was struck by how far a few accepting words could do when said in the right way at the right time,” he said.

“I think the most important takeaway is that educators should consider more what they say and do in the operating room to these junior students/trainees, as our data suggest even a single sentence at such a vulnerable point in time can push them into a choosing their handedness,” Dr. Gilbert said. “That’s not a small decision to make, and educators should be more thoughtful when engaging in the topic.”

Also, educators should offer left-handed resources during clerkship orientations on techniques such as knot-tying, he said. “This normalized handedness and may make students more comfortable with themselves in the operating room.”

Finally, “educators should be able to teach medical students the level-appropriate skills in either hand. If a medical student asks how to tie a knot or throw a stitch in their left hand, the educator should be able to demonstrate this to them effectively,” Dr. Gilbert added.

More research is needed to understand the needs and wants of left-handed medical students, including those who do not pursue surgery and of the skills of the residents and attendings who are tasked with educating these students, Dr. Gilbert told this news organization.

“Eventually, the goal is to implement concrete changes to improve resources for these students, but I think the most effective way to design these resources is to fully grasp the desires and concerns of all involved parties,” he said.

Residency Director Perspective

“We are increasingly sensitive to individual differences, but for some reason, left-handedness is a blind spot, although 10% of the population is left-handed,” said Stephen M. Kavic, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in an interview.

“Interestingly, we do not ask handedness on residency applications, suggesting that it may be viewed as a negative trait in the selection process,” said Dr. Kavic, who also serves as program director of residency in surgery at the University of Maryland.

“While not left-handed myself, as Program Director, I have been tasked with training left-handed residents, and I appreciate the challenges,” Dr. Kavic said. “Our department is about 6% left-handed. Most left-handed surgeons are far more comfortable with their nondominant hand than right-handers are with theirs,” he noted. “We do have left-handed instruments available, but the ratio of sets is easily 100:1 right to left.”

With regard to the current study, Dr. Kavic said it was understandable that left-handed medical students feel stigmatized. A message for educators is to not presume right-handedness; instead, ask students about the hand preference on first meeting, and then training will be more inclusive, he said.

“There is a fundamental difference in mirror image training when a righty tries to teach a lefty. How do we do this better and in a standardized fashion? This article clearly shows that we still have a problem; now we must do the work to fix it,” Dr. Kavic said.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mortality in patients with takotsubo syndrome (TTS), sometimes called broken heart syndrome or stress-induced cardiomyopathy is substantially higher than that in the general population and comparable with that in patients having myocardial infarction (MI), results of a new case-control study showed. The rates of medication use are similar for TTS and MI, despite no current clinical trials or recommendations to guide such therapies, the authors noted.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 620 Scottish patients (mean age, 66 years; 91% women) with TTS, a potentially fatal condition that mimics MI, predominantly affects middle-aged women, and is often triggered by stress.
• The analysis also included two age-, sex-, and geographically matched control groups: Representative participants from the general Scottish population (1:4) and patients with acute MI (1:1).
• Using comprehensive national data sets, researchers extracted information for all three cohorts on prescribing of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications, including the duration of dispensing and causes of death, and clustered the major causes of death into 17 major groups.
• At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there were 722 deaths (153 in patients with TTS, 195 in those with MI, and 374 in the general population cohort).

TAKEAWAY:

• and slightly lower than that in patients having MI (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; P = .012), with cardiovascular causes, particularly heart failure, being the most strongly associated with TTS (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.81-3.39; P < .0001 vs general population), followed by pulmonary causes. Noncardiovascular mortality was similar in TTS and MI.
• Prescription rates of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications were similar between patients with TTS and MI.
• The only cardiovascular therapy associated with lower mortality in patients with TTS was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy (P = .0056); in contrast, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, antiplatelet agents, and statins were all associated with improved survival in patients with MI.
• Diuretics were associated with worse outcomes in both patients with TTS and MI, as was psychotropic therapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may help to lay the foundations for further exploration of potential mechanisms and treatments” for TTS, an “increasingly recognized and potentially fatal condition,” the authors concluded.

In an accompanying comment, Rodolfo Citro, MD, PHD, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d’ Aragona University Hospital, Salerno, Italy, and colleagues said the authors should be commended for providing data on cardiovascular mortality “during one of the longest available follow-ups in TTS,” adding the study “suggests the importance of further research for more appropriate management of patients with acute and long-term TTS.”

SOURCE:

The research was led by Amelia E. Rudd, MSC, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen and NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Complete alignment of all variables related to clinical characteristics of patients with TTS and MI wasn’t feasible. During the study, TTS was still relatively unfamiliar to clinicians and underdiagnosed. As the study used a national data set of routinely collected data, not all desirable information was available, including indications of why drugs were prescribed or discontinued, which could have led to imprecise results. As the study used nonrandomized data, causality can’t be assumed.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Rudd had no relevant conflicts of interest. Study author Dana K. Dawson, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, declared receiving the Chief Scientist Office Scotland award CGA-16-4 and the BHF Research Training Fellowship. Commentary authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mortality in patients with takotsubo syndrome (TTS), sometimes called broken heart syndrome or stress-induced cardiomyopathy is substantially higher than that in the general population and comparable with that in patients having myocardial infarction (MI), results of a new case-control study showed. The rates of medication use are similar for TTS and MI, despite no current clinical trials or recommendations to guide such therapies, the authors noted.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 620 Scottish patients (mean age, 66 years; 91% women) with TTS, a potentially fatal condition that mimics MI, predominantly affects middle-aged women, and is often triggered by stress.
• The analysis also included two age-, sex-, and geographically matched control groups: Representative participants from the general Scottish population (1:4) and patients with acute MI (1:1).
• Using comprehensive national data sets, researchers extracted information for all three cohorts on prescribing of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications, including the duration of dispensing and causes of death, and clustered the major causes of death into 17 major groups.
• At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there were 722 deaths (153 in patients with TTS, 195 in those with MI, and 374 in the general population cohort).

TAKEAWAY:

• and slightly lower than that in patients having MI (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; P = .012), with cardiovascular causes, particularly heart failure, being the most strongly associated with TTS (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.81-3.39; P < .0001 vs general population), followed by pulmonary causes. Noncardiovascular mortality was similar in TTS and MI.
• Prescription rates of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications were similar between patients with TTS and MI.
• The only cardiovascular therapy associated with lower mortality in patients with TTS was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy (P = .0056); in contrast, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, antiplatelet agents, and statins were all associated with improved survival in patients with MI.
• Diuretics were associated with worse outcomes in both patients with TTS and MI, as was psychotropic therapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may help to lay the foundations for further exploration of potential mechanisms and treatments” for TTS, an “increasingly recognized and potentially fatal condition,” the authors concluded.

In an accompanying comment, Rodolfo Citro, MD, PHD, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d’ Aragona University Hospital, Salerno, Italy, and colleagues said the authors should be commended for providing data on cardiovascular mortality “during one of the longest available follow-ups in TTS,” adding the study “suggests the importance of further research for more appropriate management of patients with acute and long-term TTS.”

SOURCE:

The research was led by Amelia E. Rudd, MSC, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen and NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Complete alignment of all variables related to clinical characteristics of patients with TTS and MI wasn’t feasible. During the study, TTS was still relatively unfamiliar to clinicians and underdiagnosed. As the study used a national data set of routinely collected data, not all desirable information was available, including indications of why drugs were prescribed or discontinued, which could have led to imprecise results. As the study used nonrandomized data, causality can’t be assumed.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Rudd had no relevant conflicts of interest. Study author Dana K. Dawson, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, declared receiving the Chief Scientist Office Scotland award CGA-16-4 and the BHF Research Training Fellowship. Commentary authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mortality in patients with takotsubo syndrome (TTS), sometimes called broken heart syndrome or stress-induced cardiomyopathy is substantially higher than that in the general population and comparable with that in patients having myocardial infarction (MI), results of a new case-control study showed. The rates of medication use are similar for TTS and MI, despite no current clinical trials or recommendations to guide such therapies, the authors noted.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 620 Scottish patients (mean age, 66 years; 91% women) with TTS, a potentially fatal condition that mimics MI, predominantly affects middle-aged women, and is often triggered by stress.
• The analysis also included two age-, sex-, and geographically matched control groups: Representative participants from the general Scottish population (1:4) and patients with acute MI (1:1).
• Using comprehensive national data sets, researchers extracted information for all three cohorts on prescribing of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications, including the duration of dispensing and causes of death, and clustered the major causes of death into 17 major groups.
• At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there were 722 deaths (153 in patients with TTS, 195 in those with MI, and 374 in the general population cohort).

TAKEAWAY:

• and slightly lower than that in patients having MI (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; P = .012), with cardiovascular causes, particularly heart failure, being the most strongly associated with TTS (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.81-3.39; P < .0001 vs general population), followed by pulmonary causes. Noncardiovascular mortality was similar in TTS and MI.
• Prescription rates of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications were similar between patients with TTS and MI.
• The only cardiovascular therapy associated with lower mortality in patients with TTS was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy (P = .0056); in contrast, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, antiplatelet agents, and statins were all associated with improved survival in patients with MI.
• Diuretics were associated with worse outcomes in both patients with TTS and MI, as was psychotropic therapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may help to lay the foundations for further exploration of potential mechanisms and treatments” for TTS, an “increasingly recognized and potentially fatal condition,” the authors concluded.

In an accompanying comment, Rodolfo Citro, MD, PHD, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d’ Aragona University Hospital, Salerno, Italy, and colleagues said the authors should be commended for providing data on cardiovascular mortality “during one of the longest available follow-ups in TTS,” adding the study “suggests the importance of further research for more appropriate management of patients with acute and long-term TTS.”

SOURCE:

The research was led by Amelia E. Rudd, MSC, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen and NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Complete alignment of all variables related to clinical characteristics of patients with TTS and MI wasn’t feasible. During the study, TTS was still relatively unfamiliar to clinicians and underdiagnosed. As the study used a national data set of routinely collected data, not all desirable information was available, including indications of why drugs were prescribed or discontinued, which could have led to imprecise results. As the study used nonrandomized data, causality can’t be assumed.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Rudd had no relevant conflicts of interest. Study author Dana K. Dawson, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, declared receiving the Chief Scientist Office Scotland award CGA-16-4 and the BHF Research Training Fellowship. Commentary authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Daily toothbrushing is associated with a reduced incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), especially in patients on mechanical ventilation. This practice also is associated with lower intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, shorter ICU admissions, and shorter ventilator dependency. These are the findings of a meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Hospital policies must reassess the importance of oral hygiene even, or perhaps especially, in situations in which attention is focused elsewhere.

Oral Microbiota and Lungs

HAP largely results from the aspiration of microorganisms present in the oral cavity. In fact, the oral microbiota comprises an estimated 700 species of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa. There is a known link between oral health and the development of pneumonia, and rigorous oral hygiene is part of the recommendations for preventing HAP. But the methods that should be used for ensuring good hygiene haven’t been determined. The use of chlorhexidine-based mouthwash is debated because there is no evidence that it prevents pneumonia and because some studies have suggested a link between chlorhexidine and higher mortality rates.

Toothbrushing is potentially more effective than antiseptic at reducing the oral microbiota because the mechanical action breaks up plaque and other biofilms. Yet, guidelines have focused very little on brushing as a measure for preventing hospital-acquired infections, meaning that every hospital has its own way of doing things.
 

What Data Show

Selina Ehrenzeller, MD, and Michael Klompas, MD, MPH, of the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a systematic literature analysis to identify randomized clinical studies in which daily toothbrushing was shown to affect the risk for HAP in adult hospital inpatients. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were used for the meta-analysis. The effective population size was 2786 patients.

Daily toothbrushing was associated with a 33% lower risk for HAP (relative risk [RR], 0.67) and a 29% lower risk for ICU mortality (RR, 0.81). Reduction in pneumonia incidence was significant for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.68) but not for patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Toothbrushing for patients in the ICU was associated with fewer days of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, −1.24 days) and a shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference, −1.78 days). Brushing twice a day vs more frequent intervals was associated with similar effect estimates. No differences were seen in duration of stay in various ICU subdepartments and in the use of antibiotics that were linked to daily toothbrushing.
 

Expert Opinion

“This study represents an exciting contribution to infection prevention and reinforces the notion that routine toothbrushing is an essential component of standard of care in ventilated patients,” Rupak Datta, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and specialist in antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings, wrote in a commentary on the study. According to Dr. Datta, there is still uncertainty regarding the importance of this practice in preventing nonventilator-HAP, as the investigators could identify only two studies with nonventilated patients that met inclusion criteria. Other studies will be needed to help standardize toothbrushing in hospital patients admitted in general. “As the literature on HAP evolves,” concluded Dr. Datta, “oral hygiene may take on an indispensable role, similar to hand washing, in preventing and controlling hospital-acquired infections.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Daily toothbrushing is associated with a reduced incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), especially in patients on mechanical ventilation. This practice also is associated with lower intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, shorter ICU admissions, and shorter ventilator dependency. These are the findings of a meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Hospital policies must reassess the importance of oral hygiene even, or perhaps especially, in situations in which attention is focused elsewhere.

Oral Microbiota and Lungs

HAP largely results from the aspiration of microorganisms present in the oral cavity. In fact, the oral microbiota comprises an estimated 700 species of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa. There is a known link between oral health and the development of pneumonia, and rigorous oral hygiene is part of the recommendations for preventing HAP. But the methods that should be used for ensuring good hygiene haven’t been determined. The use of chlorhexidine-based mouthwash is debated because there is no evidence that it prevents pneumonia and because some studies have suggested a link between chlorhexidine and higher mortality rates.

Toothbrushing is potentially more effective than antiseptic at reducing the oral microbiota because the mechanical action breaks up plaque and other biofilms. Yet, guidelines have focused very little on brushing as a measure for preventing hospital-acquired infections, meaning that every hospital has its own way of doing things.
 

What Data Show

Selina Ehrenzeller, MD, and Michael Klompas, MD, MPH, of the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a systematic literature analysis to identify randomized clinical studies in which daily toothbrushing was shown to affect the risk for HAP in adult hospital inpatients. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were used for the meta-analysis. The effective population size was 2786 patients.

Daily toothbrushing was associated with a 33% lower risk for HAP (relative risk [RR], 0.67) and a 29% lower risk for ICU mortality (RR, 0.81). Reduction in pneumonia incidence was significant for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.68) but not for patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Toothbrushing for patients in the ICU was associated with fewer days of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, −1.24 days) and a shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference, −1.78 days). Brushing twice a day vs more frequent intervals was associated with similar effect estimates. No differences were seen in duration of stay in various ICU subdepartments and in the use of antibiotics that were linked to daily toothbrushing.
 

Expert Opinion

“This study represents an exciting contribution to infection prevention and reinforces the notion that routine toothbrushing is an essential component of standard of care in ventilated patients,” Rupak Datta, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and specialist in antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings, wrote in a commentary on the study. According to Dr. Datta, there is still uncertainty regarding the importance of this practice in preventing nonventilator-HAP, as the investigators could identify only two studies with nonventilated patients that met inclusion criteria. Other studies will be needed to help standardize toothbrushing in hospital patients admitted in general. “As the literature on HAP evolves,” concluded Dr. Datta, “oral hygiene may take on an indispensable role, similar to hand washing, in preventing and controlling hospital-acquired infections.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Daily toothbrushing is associated with a reduced incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), especially in patients on mechanical ventilation. This practice also is associated with lower intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, shorter ICU admissions, and shorter ventilator dependency. These are the findings of a meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Hospital policies must reassess the importance of oral hygiene even, or perhaps especially, in situations in which attention is focused elsewhere.

Oral Microbiota and Lungs

HAP largely results from the aspiration of microorganisms present in the oral cavity. In fact, the oral microbiota comprises an estimated 700 species of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa. There is a known link between oral health and the development of pneumonia, and rigorous oral hygiene is part of the recommendations for preventing HAP. But the methods that should be used for ensuring good hygiene haven’t been determined. The use of chlorhexidine-based mouthwash is debated because there is no evidence that it prevents pneumonia and because some studies have suggested a link between chlorhexidine and higher mortality rates.

Toothbrushing is potentially more effective than antiseptic at reducing the oral microbiota because the mechanical action breaks up plaque and other biofilms. Yet, guidelines have focused very little on brushing as a measure for preventing hospital-acquired infections, meaning that every hospital has its own way of doing things.
 

What Data Show

Selina Ehrenzeller, MD, and Michael Klompas, MD, MPH, of the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a systematic literature analysis to identify randomized clinical studies in which daily toothbrushing was shown to affect the risk for HAP in adult hospital inpatients. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were used for the meta-analysis. The effective population size was 2786 patients.

Daily toothbrushing was associated with a 33% lower risk for HAP (relative risk [RR], 0.67) and a 29% lower risk for ICU mortality (RR, 0.81). Reduction in pneumonia incidence was significant for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.68) but not for patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Toothbrushing for patients in the ICU was associated with fewer days of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, −1.24 days) and a shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference, −1.78 days). Brushing twice a day vs more frequent intervals was associated with similar effect estimates. No differences were seen in duration of stay in various ICU subdepartments and in the use of antibiotics that were linked to daily toothbrushing.
 

Expert Opinion

“This study represents an exciting contribution to infection prevention and reinforces the notion that routine toothbrushing is an essential component of standard of care in ventilated patients,” Rupak Datta, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and specialist in antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings, wrote in a commentary on the study. According to Dr. Datta, there is still uncertainty regarding the importance of this practice in preventing nonventilator-HAP, as the investigators could identify only two studies with nonventilated patients that met inclusion criteria. Other studies will be needed to help standardize toothbrushing in hospital patients admitted in general. “As the literature on HAP evolves,” concluded Dr. Datta, “oral hygiene may take on an indispensable role, similar to hand washing, in preventing and controlling hospital-acquired infections.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A combination of remote, supervised aerobic training, resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet significantly improved cardiovascular risk factors in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers recruited 24 adults aged 60-80 years with RA who met criteria for overweight or obesity; participants were randomized to a Supervised Weight Loss and Exercise Training (SWET) or Counseling Health as Treatment (CHAT) program for 16 weeks.
• The SWET intervention included remote supervision of aerobic training of 150 minutes/week moderate-to-vigorous intensity, 2 days per week of resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet based on a weight loss goal of 7% of body weight. The CHAT patients served as controls and completed two lifestyle counseling sessions followed by monthly check-ins.
• The primary outcome was change in a composite measure of cardiovascular risk based on metabolic syndrome z-score (MSSc), a continuous weighted score of five metabolic syndrome components: Waist circumference, mean arterial blood pressure, fasting glucose, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both groups showed improvement in the primary outcome of MSSc, with absolute changes from baseline of −1.67 for the SWET group and −1.34 for the CHAT group (P < .01 for both).
• Participants in the SWET group showed significantly more improvement in secondary outcome measures of body weight, fat mass, and disease activity score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), as well as greater improvement in patient-reported physical and mental health, physical function, and fatigue, than those in the CHAT group, but the CHAT group improved significantly compared with their baseline.
• The strongest specific effects for the different components of the intervention were those of aerobic training on physical function and fatigue, resistance training on DAS28-CRP, and weight loss on MSSc.
• Neither group experienced significant changes in lean mass, absolute peak V02, unilateral isometric knee extension, or bilateral grip strength.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings from our study indicate, at a minimum, integrating even 2 hours of healthy lifestyle counseling may improve RA management, let alone demonstrate the substantial impact that can be provided by a comprehensive, remotely supervised lifestyle intervention,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Brian J. Andonian, MD, of Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. The study was published online in ACR Open Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size was a limitation of the study findings, as was the lack of blinding and high level of motivation in the CHAT group, who had greater improvements than expected in weight loss and increased physical activity; the study also was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with potential physical and mental effects on participants who tested positive during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center of the US National Institute on Aging.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A combination of remote, supervised aerobic training, resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet significantly improved cardiovascular risk factors in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers recruited 24 adults aged 60-80 years with RA who met criteria for overweight or obesity; participants were randomized to a Supervised Weight Loss and Exercise Training (SWET) or Counseling Health as Treatment (CHAT) program for 16 weeks.
• The SWET intervention included remote supervision of aerobic training of 150 minutes/week moderate-to-vigorous intensity, 2 days per week of resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet based on a weight loss goal of 7% of body weight. The CHAT patients served as controls and completed two lifestyle counseling sessions followed by monthly check-ins.
• The primary outcome was change in a composite measure of cardiovascular risk based on metabolic syndrome z-score (MSSc), a continuous weighted score of five metabolic syndrome components: Waist circumference, mean arterial blood pressure, fasting glucose, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both groups showed improvement in the primary outcome of MSSc, with absolute changes from baseline of −1.67 for the SWET group and −1.34 for the CHAT group (P < .01 for both).
• Participants in the SWET group showed significantly more improvement in secondary outcome measures of body weight, fat mass, and disease activity score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), as well as greater improvement in patient-reported physical and mental health, physical function, and fatigue, than those in the CHAT group, but the CHAT group improved significantly compared with their baseline.
• The strongest specific effects for the different components of the intervention were those of aerobic training on physical function and fatigue, resistance training on DAS28-CRP, and weight loss on MSSc.
• Neither group experienced significant changes in lean mass, absolute peak V02, unilateral isometric knee extension, or bilateral grip strength.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings from our study indicate, at a minimum, integrating even 2 hours of healthy lifestyle counseling may improve RA management, let alone demonstrate the substantial impact that can be provided by a comprehensive, remotely supervised lifestyle intervention,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Brian J. Andonian, MD, of Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. The study was published online in ACR Open Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size was a limitation of the study findings, as was the lack of blinding and high level of motivation in the CHAT group, who had greater improvements than expected in weight loss and increased physical activity; the study also was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with potential physical and mental effects on participants who tested positive during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center of the US National Institute on Aging.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A combination of remote, supervised aerobic training, resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet significantly improved cardiovascular risk factors in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers recruited 24 adults aged 60-80 years with RA who met criteria for overweight or obesity; participants were randomized to a Supervised Weight Loss and Exercise Training (SWET) or Counseling Health as Treatment (CHAT) program for 16 weeks.
• The SWET intervention included remote supervision of aerobic training of 150 minutes/week moderate-to-vigorous intensity, 2 days per week of resistance training, and a hypocaloric diet based on a weight loss goal of 7% of body weight. The CHAT patients served as controls and completed two lifestyle counseling sessions followed by monthly check-ins.
• The primary outcome was change in a composite measure of cardiovascular risk based on metabolic syndrome z-score (MSSc), a continuous weighted score of five metabolic syndrome components: Waist circumference, mean arterial blood pressure, fasting glucose, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both groups showed improvement in the primary outcome of MSSc, with absolute changes from baseline of −1.67 for the SWET group and −1.34 for the CHAT group (P < .01 for both).
• Participants in the SWET group showed significantly more improvement in secondary outcome measures of body weight, fat mass, and disease activity score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), as well as greater improvement in patient-reported physical and mental health, physical function, and fatigue, than those in the CHAT group, but the CHAT group improved significantly compared with their baseline.
• The strongest specific effects for the different components of the intervention were those of aerobic training on physical function and fatigue, resistance training on DAS28-CRP, and weight loss on MSSc.
• Neither group experienced significant changes in lean mass, absolute peak V02, unilateral isometric knee extension, or bilateral grip strength.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings from our study indicate, at a minimum, integrating even 2 hours of healthy lifestyle counseling may improve RA management, let alone demonstrate the substantial impact that can be provided by a comprehensive, remotely supervised lifestyle intervention,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Brian J. Andonian, MD, of Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. The study was published online in ACR Open Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size was a limitation of the study findings, as was the lack of blinding and high level of motivation in the CHAT group, who had greater improvements than expected in weight loss and increased physical activity; the study also was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with potential physical and mental effects on participants who tested positive during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center of the US National Institute on Aging.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 20% of US physicians took less than 1 week of vacation in the previous year, a new study found. When doctors did go on vacation, 70% reported working on their days off to handle patient-related tasks.

Burnout was more likely among doctors who worked more during vacations and lacked coverage in responding to electronic health messages from patients, according to the cross-sectional study, which was published on January 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.“It’s important to provide physicians with adequate time to disconnect from work and recharge,” said study coauthor Tait Shanafelt, MD, chief wellness officer at Stanford Medicine, in an interview.

The study’s conclusion that most US physicians work on their days off “is a marker of inadequate staffing, suboptimal teamwork, and poorly designed coverage systems,” he added. “Simply allocating people a number of vacation days is not enough.”

According to Dr. Shanafelt, there’s been little research into vacation’s impact on physician well-being. However, it is clear that work overload and exhaustion are major problems among American physicians. “Inadequate time off may magnify these challenges.”

Research suggests that physicians suffer more burnout than other US workers even after adjusting for confounders, he said. Extensive evidence shows that burnout in physicians contributes to medical errors and erodes quality of care and patient satisfaction, he added.

For the new study, researchers mailed surveys to 3671 members of the American Medical Association from 2020 to 2021, and 1162 (31.7%) responded. Another 6348 (7.1%) responded to an email survey sent to 90,000 physicians. An analysis suggested the respondents were representative of all US practicing physicians. 

Among 3024 respondents who responded to a subsurvey about vacations, about 40% took more than 15 days of vacation over the past year, about 40% took 6-15 days, and about 20% took 5 or fewer days. 

Fewer than half of physicians said their electronic health record (EHR) inboxes were fully covered by others while they were away. About 70% said they worked while on vacation, with nearly 15% working an hour or more each day.

Emergency physicians were the least likely and anesthesiologists were the most likely to take at least 15 days of vacation per year, according to the study. 

Women were more likely than men to work 30 or more minutes a day on vacation. Physicians aged 65 years and older were more likely to take 15 or more days of vacation per year than those under 35 years.

An adjusted analysis linked complete EHR inbox coverage to lower odds of taking time during vacation to work (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80).

“For many, difficulty finding clinical coverage, lack of EHR inbox coverage, and returning to an overwhelming backlog of EHR inbox work at were identified as barriers to taking vacation,” Dr. Shanafelt said.

Researchers linked lower rates of burnout to taking more than 3 weeks of vacation per year (OR, 0.59-0.66, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 0.40-0.98) vs none. They also linked less burnout to full EHR inbox coverage while on vacation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and more burnout to spending 30 minutes or more on work while on a typical vacation day (OR, 1.58-1.97, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 1.22-2.77). 

Study limitations include the low participation rate and lack of insight into causation. It’s not clear how burnout and less vacation time are related and whether one causes the other, Shanafelt said. “It is possible there are a number of interacting factors rather than a simple, linear relationship.”

In an interview, Lazar J. Greenfield, Jr., MD, PhD, professor and chairman of neurology at UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut, said his department encourages clinicians to plan vacations well ahead of time, and “we make a real strong effort to make sure that people are fully covered and someone has their Epic inbox.”

Dr. Greenfield, who wasn’t involved in the new study, recommended that physicians plan active vacations, so they have less downtime to catch up on work matters. But he acknowledged that stepping away from emails can be difficult, especially when physicians fear pileups of work upon their return or don’t want to annoy patients with tardy responses.

“They have a hard time disengaging from their moral obligations to patients,” he said. “Another issue, particularly in my field of neurology, is that there’s a lot of subspecialties. Finding somebody with the exact subspecialty and expertise to cover a very specific patient population they treat can be really hard.”

The Stanford WellMD Center, Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-being, and American Medical Association funded the study.

Dr. Shanafelt discloses coinventing the Well-Being Index and its derivatives with another study author; Mayo Clinic licensed the Well-Being Index and pays them royalties outside the submitted work. Dr. Shanafelt also reported support for grand rounds, lectures, and advising for healthcare organizations outside the submitted work. Other authors reported personal fees from Marvin Behavioral Health and grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Science Foundation, and Med Ed Solutions. 

Dr. Greenfield had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

About 20% of US physicians took less than 1 week of vacation in the previous year, a new study found. When doctors did go on vacation, 70% reported working on their days off to handle patient-related tasks.

Burnout was more likely among doctors who worked more during vacations and lacked coverage in responding to electronic health messages from patients, according to the cross-sectional study, which was published on January 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.“It’s important to provide physicians with adequate time to disconnect from work and recharge,” said study coauthor Tait Shanafelt, MD, chief wellness officer at Stanford Medicine, in an interview.

The study’s conclusion that most US physicians work on their days off “is a marker of inadequate staffing, suboptimal teamwork, and poorly designed coverage systems,” he added. “Simply allocating people a number of vacation days is not enough.”

According to Dr. Shanafelt, there’s been little research into vacation’s impact on physician well-being. However, it is clear that work overload and exhaustion are major problems among American physicians. “Inadequate time off may magnify these challenges.”

Research suggests that physicians suffer more burnout than other US workers even after adjusting for confounders, he said. Extensive evidence shows that burnout in physicians contributes to medical errors and erodes quality of care and patient satisfaction, he added.

For the new study, researchers mailed surveys to 3671 members of the American Medical Association from 2020 to 2021, and 1162 (31.7%) responded. Another 6348 (7.1%) responded to an email survey sent to 90,000 physicians. An analysis suggested the respondents were representative of all US practicing physicians. 

Among 3024 respondents who responded to a subsurvey about vacations, about 40% took more than 15 days of vacation over the past year, about 40% took 6-15 days, and about 20% took 5 or fewer days. 

Fewer than half of physicians said their electronic health record (EHR) inboxes were fully covered by others while they were away. About 70% said they worked while on vacation, with nearly 15% working an hour or more each day.

Emergency physicians were the least likely and anesthesiologists were the most likely to take at least 15 days of vacation per year, according to the study. 

Women were more likely than men to work 30 or more minutes a day on vacation. Physicians aged 65 years and older were more likely to take 15 or more days of vacation per year than those under 35 years.

An adjusted analysis linked complete EHR inbox coverage to lower odds of taking time during vacation to work (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80).

“For many, difficulty finding clinical coverage, lack of EHR inbox coverage, and returning to an overwhelming backlog of EHR inbox work at were identified as barriers to taking vacation,” Dr. Shanafelt said.

Researchers linked lower rates of burnout to taking more than 3 weeks of vacation per year (OR, 0.59-0.66, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 0.40-0.98) vs none. They also linked less burnout to full EHR inbox coverage while on vacation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and more burnout to spending 30 minutes or more on work while on a typical vacation day (OR, 1.58-1.97, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 1.22-2.77). 

Study limitations include the low participation rate and lack of insight into causation. It’s not clear how burnout and less vacation time are related and whether one causes the other, Shanafelt said. “It is possible there are a number of interacting factors rather than a simple, linear relationship.”

In an interview, Lazar J. Greenfield, Jr., MD, PhD, professor and chairman of neurology at UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut, said his department encourages clinicians to plan vacations well ahead of time, and “we make a real strong effort to make sure that people are fully covered and someone has their Epic inbox.”

Dr. Greenfield, who wasn’t involved in the new study, recommended that physicians plan active vacations, so they have less downtime to catch up on work matters. But he acknowledged that stepping away from emails can be difficult, especially when physicians fear pileups of work upon their return or don’t want to annoy patients with tardy responses.

“They have a hard time disengaging from their moral obligations to patients,” he said. “Another issue, particularly in my field of neurology, is that there’s a lot of subspecialties. Finding somebody with the exact subspecialty and expertise to cover a very specific patient population they treat can be really hard.”

The Stanford WellMD Center, Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-being, and American Medical Association funded the study.

Dr. Shanafelt discloses coinventing the Well-Being Index and its derivatives with another study author; Mayo Clinic licensed the Well-Being Index and pays them royalties outside the submitted work. Dr. Shanafelt also reported support for grand rounds, lectures, and advising for healthcare organizations outside the submitted work. Other authors reported personal fees from Marvin Behavioral Health and grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Science Foundation, and Med Ed Solutions. 

Dr. Greenfield had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

About 20% of US physicians took less than 1 week of vacation in the previous year, a new study found. When doctors did go on vacation, 70% reported working on their days off to handle patient-related tasks.

Burnout was more likely among doctors who worked more during vacations and lacked coverage in responding to electronic health messages from patients, according to the cross-sectional study, which was published on January 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.“It’s important to provide physicians with adequate time to disconnect from work and recharge,” said study coauthor Tait Shanafelt, MD, chief wellness officer at Stanford Medicine, in an interview.

The study’s conclusion that most US physicians work on their days off “is a marker of inadequate staffing, suboptimal teamwork, and poorly designed coverage systems,” he added. “Simply allocating people a number of vacation days is not enough.”

According to Dr. Shanafelt, there’s been little research into vacation’s impact on physician well-being. However, it is clear that work overload and exhaustion are major problems among American physicians. “Inadequate time off may magnify these challenges.”

Research suggests that physicians suffer more burnout than other US workers even after adjusting for confounders, he said. Extensive evidence shows that burnout in physicians contributes to medical errors and erodes quality of care and patient satisfaction, he added.

For the new study, researchers mailed surveys to 3671 members of the American Medical Association from 2020 to 2021, and 1162 (31.7%) responded. Another 6348 (7.1%) responded to an email survey sent to 90,000 physicians. An analysis suggested the respondents were representative of all US practicing physicians. 

Among 3024 respondents who responded to a subsurvey about vacations, about 40% took more than 15 days of vacation over the past year, about 40% took 6-15 days, and about 20% took 5 or fewer days. 

Fewer than half of physicians said their electronic health record (EHR) inboxes were fully covered by others while they were away. About 70% said they worked while on vacation, with nearly 15% working an hour or more each day.

Emergency physicians were the least likely and anesthesiologists were the most likely to take at least 15 days of vacation per year, according to the study. 

Women were more likely than men to work 30 or more minutes a day on vacation. Physicians aged 65 years and older were more likely to take 15 or more days of vacation per year than those under 35 years.

An adjusted analysis linked complete EHR inbox coverage to lower odds of taking time during vacation to work (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80).

“For many, difficulty finding clinical coverage, lack of EHR inbox coverage, and returning to an overwhelming backlog of EHR inbox work at were identified as barriers to taking vacation,” Dr. Shanafelt said.

Researchers linked lower rates of burnout to taking more than 3 weeks of vacation per year (OR, 0.59-0.66, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 0.40-0.98) vs none. They also linked less burnout to full EHR inbox coverage while on vacation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and more burnout to spending 30 minutes or more on work while on a typical vacation day (OR, 1.58-1.97, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 1.22-2.77). 

Study limitations include the low participation rate and lack of insight into causation. It’s not clear how burnout and less vacation time are related and whether one causes the other, Shanafelt said. “It is possible there are a number of interacting factors rather than a simple, linear relationship.”

In an interview, Lazar J. Greenfield, Jr., MD, PhD, professor and chairman of neurology at UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut, said his department encourages clinicians to plan vacations well ahead of time, and “we make a real strong effort to make sure that people are fully covered and someone has their Epic inbox.”

Dr. Greenfield, who wasn’t involved in the new study, recommended that physicians plan active vacations, so they have less downtime to catch up on work matters. But he acknowledged that stepping away from emails can be difficult, especially when physicians fear pileups of work upon their return or don’t want to annoy patients with tardy responses.

“They have a hard time disengaging from their moral obligations to patients,” he said. “Another issue, particularly in my field of neurology, is that there’s a lot of subspecialties. Finding somebody with the exact subspecialty and expertise to cover a very specific patient population they treat can be really hard.”

The Stanford WellMD Center, Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-being, and American Medical Association funded the study.

Dr. Shanafelt discloses coinventing the Well-Being Index and its derivatives with another study author; Mayo Clinic licensed the Well-Being Index and pays them royalties outside the submitted work. Dr. Shanafelt also reported support for grand rounds, lectures, and advising for healthcare organizations outside the submitted work. Other authors reported personal fees from Marvin Behavioral Health and grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Science Foundation, and Med Ed Solutions. 

Dr. Greenfield had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Prophylactic treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA) in individuals at high genetic risk for Paget disease of the bone (PDB) can prevent the development or progression of the condition, according to a new study. The authors argued that the positive results from the trial suggest that individuals with a familial history of PDB should undergo genetic screening.

“If it’s positive, you should be able to have a bone scan and take it from there,” senior author Stuart Ralston, MBChB, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), said in an interview.

Dr. Ralston

PDB is a chronic skeletal growth disorder that affects an estimated 1-3 million people in the United States and is most prevalent in individuals over 65 years old. Symptoms of the disease may not present until later stages when there is already skeletal damage that cannot be resolved by medications. Earlier intervention in individuals who have not yet shown signs of the condition could potentially halt disease progression, Dr. Ralston said.

Genetics plays a substantial role in PDB, especially pathogenic variants of the gene SQSTM1. An estimated 40%-50% of people with a familial history of PDB have these variants, according to the study, which are associated with earlier PDB onset and more severe disease.

However, it was unclear if early interventions in these higher-risk individuals may result in better health outcomes.

In this new study, published on December 20, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, researchers recruited participants through family members already diagnosed with PDB who received treatment at outpatient clinics. Over 1400 individuals with PDB underwent genetic testing for pathogenic SQSTM1 variants. If they tested positive, their first-degree relatives — primarily children — were offered the same genetic test. In total, 350 relatives tested positive for these pathogenic SQSTM1 variants, and of these individuals, 222 agreed to participate in the trial.

At the beginning of the study, all participants received a radionuclide bone scan to screen for bone lesions. They also underwent testing for the bone resorption marker type I collagen C-terminal telopeptides (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP).

Participants were then randomized to receive either a single intravenous infusion of 5 mg of ZA or placebo treatment. Researchers followed up with participants annually for a median of 84 months (7 years), and then baseline assessments were repeated.

A total of 90 individuals in the ZA treatment group and 90 individuals in the placebo group completed the trial.

Participants were, on average, 50 years old at the beginning of the study. In the ZA group, nine individuals had lesions detected in bone scans at baseline, compared with just one at the study’s end. In the placebo group, 12 individuals had detectable lesions at baseline, compared with 11 individuals at the study’s end.

While the proportion of individuals with lesions was similar between the two groups, there were about twice as many lesions overall in the placebo group, compared with the ZA group (29 vs 15), which researchers said was by chance. All but two lesions disappeared in the ZA group, compared with 26 lesions remaining in the placebo group (P < .0001).

“The bone scan reversal of abnormalities was amazing,” said Ralston, where eight of nine patients with lesions in the ZA group “had their bone scan evidence completely wiped out,” he said. “That’s a very powerful result.”

Both CTX and P1NP concentrations fell in the ZA group at 12 months and remained significantly lower than the placebo group throughout the study (P < .0001 for each).

Overall, the researchers reported that eight individuals in the placebo group and no individuals in the ZA group had a poor outcome, defined as new bone lesions or lesions that were unchanged or progressed (odds ratio, 0.08; P = .003). Two individuals in the placebo group developed lesions during the study, compared with none in the ZA group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Importantly, there were no differences in adverse events between the two groups.

While only a small number of people in the study had legions — around 9% of participants — the effect of ZA is “dramatic,” Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, told this news organization.

While clinicians primarily diagnose PDB with X-rays or an alkaline phosphatase blood test, testing for SQSTM1 is a new way to understand if someone is at higher risk for the disease, she said.

“Now, it seems like [the test] is fairly easily available, so probably it’s something we can begin to incorporate into our armamentarium,” Dr. Russell said.

Individuals who test positive for pathogenic variants of SQSTM1 could then get a bone scan, while those who tested negative may not need any additional testing, she added.

Dr. Ralston and coauthors noted that the effect size shown in this study is similar to that of studies examining adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. That practice, they write, is now a part of the standard of care.

“We believe that a similar approach is now justified in people with a family history of PDB who test positive for SQSTM1 mutations,” they wrote.

However, it is not clear if all individuals with pathogenic SQSTM1 should receive ZA treatment or if treatment should be given to only those with bone lesions.

“Future research to gather the views of people with a family history of PDB will help to inform the most appropriate way forward,” the authors wrote.

The UK Medical Research Council and Arthritis Research UK funded the trial. Zoledronic acid and a placebo were supplied by Novartis. Dr. Ralston reported funding to his institution from Kyowa Kirin, UCB, the Paget’s Association, and the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Some coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside the trial. Dr. Russell had no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prophylactic treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA) in individuals at high genetic risk for Paget disease of the bone (PDB) can prevent the development or progression of the condition, according to a new study. The authors argued that the positive results from the trial suggest that individuals with a familial history of PDB should undergo genetic screening.

“If it’s positive, you should be able to have a bone scan and take it from there,” senior author Stuart Ralston, MBChB, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), said in an interview.

Dr. Ralston

PDB is a chronic skeletal growth disorder that affects an estimated 1-3 million people in the United States and is most prevalent in individuals over 65 years old. Symptoms of the disease may not present until later stages when there is already skeletal damage that cannot be resolved by medications. Earlier intervention in individuals who have not yet shown signs of the condition could potentially halt disease progression, Dr. Ralston said.

Genetics plays a substantial role in PDB, especially pathogenic variants of the gene SQSTM1. An estimated 40%-50% of people with a familial history of PDB have these variants, according to the study, which are associated with earlier PDB onset and more severe disease.

However, it was unclear if early interventions in these higher-risk individuals may result in better health outcomes.

In this new study, published on December 20, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, researchers recruited participants through family members already diagnosed with PDB who received treatment at outpatient clinics. Over 1400 individuals with PDB underwent genetic testing for pathogenic SQSTM1 variants. If they tested positive, their first-degree relatives — primarily children — were offered the same genetic test. In total, 350 relatives tested positive for these pathogenic SQSTM1 variants, and of these individuals, 222 agreed to participate in the trial.

At the beginning of the study, all participants received a radionuclide bone scan to screen for bone lesions. They also underwent testing for the bone resorption marker type I collagen C-terminal telopeptides (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP).

Participants were then randomized to receive either a single intravenous infusion of 5 mg of ZA or placebo treatment. Researchers followed up with participants annually for a median of 84 months (7 years), and then baseline assessments were repeated.

A total of 90 individuals in the ZA treatment group and 90 individuals in the placebo group completed the trial.

Participants were, on average, 50 years old at the beginning of the study. In the ZA group, nine individuals had lesions detected in bone scans at baseline, compared with just one at the study’s end. In the placebo group, 12 individuals had detectable lesions at baseline, compared with 11 individuals at the study’s end.

While the proportion of individuals with lesions was similar between the two groups, there were about twice as many lesions overall in the placebo group, compared with the ZA group (29 vs 15), which researchers said was by chance. All but two lesions disappeared in the ZA group, compared with 26 lesions remaining in the placebo group (P < .0001).

“The bone scan reversal of abnormalities was amazing,” said Ralston, where eight of nine patients with lesions in the ZA group “had their bone scan evidence completely wiped out,” he said. “That’s a very powerful result.”

Both CTX and P1NP concentrations fell in the ZA group at 12 months and remained significantly lower than the placebo group throughout the study (P < .0001 for each).

Overall, the researchers reported that eight individuals in the placebo group and no individuals in the ZA group had a poor outcome, defined as new bone lesions or lesions that were unchanged or progressed (odds ratio, 0.08; P = .003). Two individuals in the placebo group developed lesions during the study, compared with none in the ZA group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Importantly, there were no differences in adverse events between the two groups.

While only a small number of people in the study had legions — around 9% of participants — the effect of ZA is “dramatic,” Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, told this news organization.

While clinicians primarily diagnose PDB with X-rays or an alkaline phosphatase blood test, testing for SQSTM1 is a new way to understand if someone is at higher risk for the disease, she said.

“Now, it seems like [the test] is fairly easily available, so probably it’s something we can begin to incorporate into our armamentarium,” Dr. Russell said.

Individuals who test positive for pathogenic variants of SQSTM1 could then get a bone scan, while those who tested negative may not need any additional testing, she added.

Dr. Ralston and coauthors noted that the effect size shown in this study is similar to that of studies examining adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. That practice, they write, is now a part of the standard of care.

“We believe that a similar approach is now justified in people with a family history of PDB who test positive for SQSTM1 mutations,” they wrote.

However, it is not clear if all individuals with pathogenic SQSTM1 should receive ZA treatment or if treatment should be given to only those with bone lesions.

“Future research to gather the views of people with a family history of PDB will help to inform the most appropriate way forward,” the authors wrote.

The UK Medical Research Council and Arthritis Research UK funded the trial. Zoledronic acid and a placebo were supplied by Novartis. Dr. Ralston reported funding to his institution from Kyowa Kirin, UCB, the Paget’s Association, and the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Some coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside the trial. Dr. Russell had no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prophylactic treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA) in individuals at high genetic risk for Paget disease of the bone (PDB) can prevent the development or progression of the condition, according to a new study. The authors argued that the positive results from the trial suggest that individuals with a familial history of PDB should undergo genetic screening.

“If it’s positive, you should be able to have a bone scan and take it from there,” senior author Stuart Ralston, MBChB, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), said in an interview.

Dr. Ralston

PDB is a chronic skeletal growth disorder that affects an estimated 1-3 million people in the United States and is most prevalent in individuals over 65 years old. Symptoms of the disease may not present until later stages when there is already skeletal damage that cannot be resolved by medications. Earlier intervention in individuals who have not yet shown signs of the condition could potentially halt disease progression, Dr. Ralston said.

Genetics plays a substantial role in PDB, especially pathogenic variants of the gene SQSTM1. An estimated 40%-50% of people with a familial history of PDB have these variants, according to the study, which are associated with earlier PDB onset and more severe disease.

However, it was unclear if early interventions in these higher-risk individuals may result in better health outcomes.

In this new study, published on December 20, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, researchers recruited participants through family members already diagnosed with PDB who received treatment at outpatient clinics. Over 1400 individuals with PDB underwent genetic testing for pathogenic SQSTM1 variants. If they tested positive, their first-degree relatives — primarily children — were offered the same genetic test. In total, 350 relatives tested positive for these pathogenic SQSTM1 variants, and of these individuals, 222 agreed to participate in the trial.

At the beginning of the study, all participants received a radionuclide bone scan to screen for bone lesions. They also underwent testing for the bone resorption marker type I collagen C-terminal telopeptides (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP).

Participants were then randomized to receive either a single intravenous infusion of 5 mg of ZA or placebo treatment. Researchers followed up with participants annually for a median of 84 months (7 years), and then baseline assessments were repeated.

A total of 90 individuals in the ZA treatment group and 90 individuals in the placebo group completed the trial.

Participants were, on average, 50 years old at the beginning of the study. In the ZA group, nine individuals had lesions detected in bone scans at baseline, compared with just one at the study’s end. In the placebo group, 12 individuals had detectable lesions at baseline, compared with 11 individuals at the study’s end.

While the proportion of individuals with lesions was similar between the two groups, there were about twice as many lesions overall in the placebo group, compared with the ZA group (29 vs 15), which researchers said was by chance. All but two lesions disappeared in the ZA group, compared with 26 lesions remaining in the placebo group (P < .0001).

“The bone scan reversal of abnormalities was amazing,” said Ralston, where eight of nine patients with lesions in the ZA group “had their bone scan evidence completely wiped out,” he said. “That’s a very powerful result.”

Both CTX and P1NP concentrations fell in the ZA group at 12 months and remained significantly lower than the placebo group throughout the study (P < .0001 for each).

Overall, the researchers reported that eight individuals in the placebo group and no individuals in the ZA group had a poor outcome, defined as new bone lesions or lesions that were unchanged or progressed (odds ratio, 0.08; P = .003). Two individuals in the placebo group developed lesions during the study, compared with none in the ZA group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Importantly, there were no differences in adverse events between the two groups.

While only a small number of people in the study had legions — around 9% of participants — the effect of ZA is “dramatic,” Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, told this news organization.

While clinicians primarily diagnose PDB with X-rays or an alkaline phosphatase blood test, testing for SQSTM1 is a new way to understand if someone is at higher risk for the disease, she said.

“Now, it seems like [the test] is fairly easily available, so probably it’s something we can begin to incorporate into our armamentarium,” Dr. Russell said.

Individuals who test positive for pathogenic variants of SQSTM1 could then get a bone scan, while those who tested negative may not need any additional testing, she added.

Dr. Ralston and coauthors noted that the effect size shown in this study is similar to that of studies examining adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. That practice, they write, is now a part of the standard of care.

“We believe that a similar approach is now justified in people with a family history of PDB who test positive for SQSTM1 mutations,” they wrote.

However, it is not clear if all individuals with pathogenic SQSTM1 should receive ZA treatment or if treatment should be given to only those with bone lesions.

“Future research to gather the views of people with a family history of PDB will help to inform the most appropriate way forward,” the authors wrote.

The UK Medical Research Council and Arthritis Research UK funded the trial. Zoledronic acid and a placebo were supplied by Novartis. Dr. Ralston reported funding to his institution from Kyowa Kirin, UCB, the Paget’s Association, and the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Some coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside the trial. Dr. Russell had no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.