Latest News

Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic led to an estimated 619 missed cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses among US veterans, and those whose cases were caught had larger tumors and more malignant bowel obstructions compared with a prepandemic period, a new longitudinal study finds.

The decline in diagnoses during the pandemic (March 2020-October 2023) represented a 5% decrease in anticipated cases compared with the prepandemic period (January 2017-February 2020) reported Veterans Health Administration (VHA) researchers in the Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

Meanwhile, the percentage of cancers > 4 cm increased from 48.9% to 57.3% from the prepandemic to pandemic periods, and the percentage of patients with malignant bowel obstructions at presentation nearly doubled from 2.7% to 5.3%. 

“The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant initial decrease in rates of colon cancer diagnosis, with a slow return to baseline,” Louise Davies, MD, MS, a head-and-neck surgeon at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and senior author of the study told Federal Practitioner. “The length of time it took for things to return to normal surprised us. Patterns of detection did not return to more normal baselines until 2023.”

The Pandemic’s Toll on Colonoscopies

While mortality and diagnosis rates have fallen significantly over the past 3 decades, an estimated 158,850 colorectal cancer cases will be diagnosed in the US in 2026, and 55,230 patients will die. Within the VHA, an estimated 4000 new cases of colorectal cancer are diagnosed annually. 

The pandemic disrupted medical care across the board, and colonoscopies were no exceptions. “There are various estimates that there were anywhere from 2 to 3 million missed exams,” said Timothy Pawlik, MD, PhD, MBA, MPH, a surgical oncologist and professor at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, in an interview. 

“At the height of the pandemic, all nonurgent procedures were put on hold,” explained Pawlik, who was not involved in the new study. “I suspect that a number of procedures were missed because different institutions and GI practices simply weren't providing that service at that time. In addition, I'm sure there was some reticence among patients to seek care even after the procedures were restarted and reoffered, especially at a hospital.”

Inside the VHA Data

The researchers found that 22,256 VHA patients were diagnosed with CRC during the study period (mean age, 71 years; 95.6% male; 72.1% White, 19.3% Black, and 6.4% Hispanic). 

In a subset of 1087 patients, the percentage with an American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥ 3 rose from 74.4% before the pandemic to 78.9% during it. 

In light of the study findings, “clinicians should encourage their eligible patients to get screened for colon cancer, especially if they delayed screening as a result of the pandemic,” Davies said. 

Why Colonoscopy Delays Matter

Pawlik, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center surgical oncologist, said even small delays in colonoscopies can be important. 

“There are data suggesting that even a delay beyond 6 to 12 months can significantly increase the risk of advanced-stage cancer. Longer delays of a year, which were associated with the pandemic, definitely increase the risk of presenting with later stages of disease and potentially have a meaningful impact on your prognosis and survival.”

However, he noted that the study findings are limited because the results don’t clarify when patients were due for colonoscopies. 

Still, in the big picture, the research “emphasizes the importance of timely colonoscopy compliance with national guidelines for screening of colon cancer,” he said. 

Lessons About At-Home Tests

Pawlik added that the research also highlights that in times of limited access such as pandemics, there can be value to pivoting to home-based screening methods.

Study coauthor Douglas Robertson, MD, MPH, national deputy director of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program with the US Department of Veterans Affairs National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program, said the pandemic spurred a shift toward fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) via mail. 

The VA is now mailing > 40,000 FIT tests per month to veterans. “This program was an outgrowth of and response to the pandemic and would enhance VA’s readiness to maintain CRC screening efforts should something similar occur in the future,” Robertson said in an interview.

The Department of Veterans Affairs funded the study. Davies, Robertson, and the other study authors have no disclosures. Pawlik is co-editor-in-chief of the Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery and has no other disclosures. 

Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic led to an estimated 619 missed cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses among US veterans, and those whose cases were caught had larger tumors and more malignant bowel obstructions compared with a prepandemic period, a new longitudinal study finds.

The decline in diagnoses during the pandemic (March 2020-October 2023) represented a 5% decrease in anticipated cases compared with the prepandemic period (January 2017-February 2020) reported Veterans Health Administration (VHA) researchers in the Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

Meanwhile, the percentage of cancers > 4 cm increased from 48.9% to 57.3% from the prepandemic to pandemic periods, and the percentage of patients with malignant bowel obstructions at presentation nearly doubled from 2.7% to 5.3%. 

“The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant initial decrease in rates of colon cancer diagnosis, with a slow return to baseline,” Louise Davies, MD, MS, a head-and-neck surgeon at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and senior author of the study told Federal Practitioner. “The length of time it took for things to return to normal surprised us. Patterns of detection did not return to more normal baselines until 2023.”

The Pandemic’s Toll on Colonoscopies

While mortality and diagnosis rates have fallen significantly over the past 3 decades, an estimated 158,850 colorectal cancer cases will be diagnosed in the US in 2026, and 55,230 patients will die. Within the VHA, an estimated 4000 new cases of colorectal cancer are diagnosed annually. 

The pandemic disrupted medical care across the board, and colonoscopies were no exceptions. “There are various estimates that there were anywhere from 2 to 3 million missed exams,” said Timothy Pawlik, MD, PhD, MBA, MPH, a surgical oncologist and professor at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, in an interview. 

“At the height of the pandemic, all nonurgent procedures were put on hold,” explained Pawlik, who was not involved in the new study. “I suspect that a number of procedures were missed because different institutions and GI practices simply weren't providing that service at that time. In addition, I'm sure there was some reticence among patients to seek care even after the procedures were restarted and reoffered, especially at a hospital.”

Inside the VHA Data

The researchers found that 22,256 VHA patients were diagnosed with CRC during the study period (mean age, 71 years; 95.6% male; 72.1% White, 19.3% Black, and 6.4% Hispanic). 

In a subset of 1087 patients, the percentage with an American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥ 3 rose from 74.4% before the pandemic to 78.9% during it. 

In light of the study findings, “clinicians should encourage their eligible patients to get screened for colon cancer, especially if they delayed screening as a result of the pandemic,” Davies said. 

Why Colonoscopy Delays Matter

Pawlik, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center surgical oncologist, said even small delays in colonoscopies can be important. 

“There are data suggesting that even a delay beyond 6 to 12 months can significantly increase the risk of advanced-stage cancer. Longer delays of a year, which were associated with the pandemic, definitely increase the risk of presenting with later stages of disease and potentially have a meaningful impact on your prognosis and survival.”

However, he noted that the study findings are limited because the results don’t clarify when patients were due for colonoscopies. 

Still, in the big picture, the research “emphasizes the importance of timely colonoscopy compliance with national guidelines for screening of colon cancer,” he said. 

Lessons About At-Home Tests

Pawlik added that the research also highlights that in times of limited access such as pandemics, there can be value to pivoting to home-based screening methods.

Study coauthor Douglas Robertson, MD, MPH, national deputy director of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program with the US Department of Veterans Affairs National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program, said the pandemic spurred a shift toward fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) via mail. 

The VA is now mailing > 40,000 FIT tests per month to veterans. “This program was an outgrowth of and response to the pandemic and would enhance VA’s readiness to maintain CRC screening efforts should something similar occur in the future,” Robertson said in an interview.

The Department of Veterans Affairs funded the study. Davies, Robertson, and the other study authors have no disclosures. Pawlik is co-editor-in-chief of the Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery and has no other disclosures. 

Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic led to an estimated 619 missed cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses among US veterans, and those whose cases were caught had larger tumors and more malignant bowel obstructions compared with a prepandemic period, a new longitudinal study finds.

The decline in diagnoses during the pandemic (March 2020-October 2023) represented a 5% decrease in anticipated cases compared with the prepandemic period (January 2017-February 2020) reported Veterans Health Administration (VHA) researchers in the Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

Meanwhile, the percentage of cancers > 4 cm increased from 48.9% to 57.3% from the prepandemic to pandemic periods, and the percentage of patients with malignant bowel obstructions at presentation nearly doubled from 2.7% to 5.3%. 

“The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant initial decrease in rates of colon cancer diagnosis, with a slow return to baseline,” Louise Davies, MD, MS, a head-and-neck surgeon at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and senior author of the study told Federal Practitioner. “The length of time it took for things to return to normal surprised us. Patterns of detection did not return to more normal baselines until 2023.”

The Pandemic’s Toll on Colonoscopies

While mortality and diagnosis rates have fallen significantly over the past 3 decades, an estimated 158,850 colorectal cancer cases will be diagnosed in the US in 2026, and 55,230 patients will die. Within the VHA, an estimated 4000 new cases of colorectal cancer are diagnosed annually. 

The pandemic disrupted medical care across the board, and colonoscopies were no exceptions. “There are various estimates that there were anywhere from 2 to 3 million missed exams,” said Timothy Pawlik, MD, PhD, MBA, MPH, a surgical oncologist and professor at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, in an interview. 

“At the height of the pandemic, all nonurgent procedures were put on hold,” explained Pawlik, who was not involved in the new study. “I suspect that a number of procedures were missed because different institutions and GI practices simply weren't providing that service at that time. In addition, I'm sure there was some reticence among patients to seek care even after the procedures were restarted and reoffered, especially at a hospital.”

Inside the VHA Data

The researchers found that 22,256 VHA patients were diagnosed with CRC during the study period (mean age, 71 years; 95.6% male; 72.1% White, 19.3% Black, and 6.4% Hispanic). 

In a subset of 1087 patients, the percentage with an American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥ 3 rose from 74.4% before the pandemic to 78.9% during it. 

In light of the study findings, “clinicians should encourage their eligible patients to get screened for colon cancer, especially if they delayed screening as a result of the pandemic,” Davies said. 

Why Colonoscopy Delays Matter

Pawlik, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center surgical oncologist, said even small delays in colonoscopies can be important. 

“There are data suggesting that even a delay beyond 6 to 12 months can significantly increase the risk of advanced-stage cancer. Longer delays of a year, which were associated with the pandemic, definitely increase the risk of presenting with later stages of disease and potentially have a meaningful impact on your prognosis and survival.”

However, he noted that the study findings are limited because the results don’t clarify when patients were due for colonoscopies. 

Still, in the big picture, the research “emphasizes the importance of timely colonoscopy compliance with national guidelines for screening of colon cancer,” he said. 

Lessons About At-Home Tests

Pawlik added that the research also highlights that in times of limited access such as pandemics, there can be value to pivoting to home-based screening methods.

Study coauthor Douglas Robertson, MD, MPH, national deputy director of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program with the US Department of Veterans Affairs National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program, said the pandemic spurred a shift toward fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) via mail. 

The VA is now mailing > 40,000 FIT tests per month to veterans. “This program was an outgrowth of and response to the pandemic and would enhance VA’s readiness to maintain CRC screening efforts should something similar occur in the future,” Robertson said in an interview.

The Department of Veterans Affairs funded the study. Davies, Robertson, and the other study authors have no disclosures. Pawlik is co-editor-in-chief of the Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery and has no other disclosures. 

TOPLINE:

In a population-based study, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in England was associated with a 100% reduction in mortality due to cervical cancer between 2020 and 2024 among women aged 20-24 years who were mostly vaccinated at the age of 12-13 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based study using cervical cancer mortality data of women aged 20-24, 25-29, and 30-34 years from the National Disease Registration Service and Office for National Statistics in England from 2000 to 2024.
• The analysis included women from the first eligible birth cohort (born from September 1990 to August 1991) who were targeted by England's school-based HPV vaccination programme introduced in September 2008 for girls aged 12-13 years, with a catch-up programme for girls aged 14-18 years implemented in 2008-2010.
• HPV vaccination coverage by birth cohort was obtained from annual reports of the UK Health Security Agency and used to estimate the proportion of women vaccinated for each age group and calendar year.
• The relative risk reduction (RRR) in mortality among vaccinated women compared with expected rates in the absence of vaccination, assuming no herd immunity, was evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among women aged 20-24 years between 2020 and 2024 with approximately 88%-91% vaccination coverage, no deaths occurred compared with 23.1 expected deaths on the basis of the observed average rate from 2000 to 2014, corresponding to a reduction in mortality of 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%).
• Among vaccinated women, the RRR in mortality due to cervical cancer was estimated at 100% (P = .0008) in those aged 20-24 years, 100% (P < .0001) in those aged 25-29 years, and 63% (P = .094) in those aged 30-34 years.
• Mortality reductions of 80% (95% CI, 51%-94%) were observed in women aged 20-24 years during 2015-2019 and 69% (95% CI, 55%-79%) were observed in those aged 25-29 years during 2020-2024.
• Up until the end of 2024, the HPV vaccination programme in England was associated with a reduction of approximately 199.6 deaths due to cervical cancer (95% CI, 125.0-274.2) among cohorts offered vaccination.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that "we found a substantial reduction in cervical cancer mortality in women aged 20-29 years that was associated with high uptake of HPV vaccination." "This observation further supports the benefit of HPV vaccination in reducing not only the incidence of but also the mortality from a cancer that is globally still the second most common cause of cancer death in women younger than 65 years," they added. SOURCE: The study was led by Peter Sasieni, PhD, Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England. It was published online on June 17, 2026, in The Lancet.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis relied on population-level vaccination coverage data instead of individual-level status; the researchers had access to mortality data in 5-year age groups only rather than single-year cohorts, and the study assumed no herd protection among unvaccinated women within birth cohorts.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Cancer Research UK. One author reported serving as a lead investigator of a trial examining the HPV vaccine Gardasil 9 that was partially supported by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp & Dohme. Additional disclosures are listed in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

In a population-based study, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in England was associated with a 100% reduction in mortality due to cervical cancer between 2020 and 2024 among women aged 20-24 years who were mostly vaccinated at the age of 12-13 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based study using cervical cancer mortality data of women aged 20-24, 25-29, and 30-34 years from the National Disease Registration Service and Office for National Statistics in England from 2000 to 2024.
• The analysis included women from the first eligible birth cohort (born from September 1990 to August 1991) who were targeted by England's school-based HPV vaccination programme introduced in September 2008 for girls aged 12-13 years, with a catch-up programme for girls aged 14-18 years implemented in 2008-2010.
• HPV vaccination coverage by birth cohort was obtained from annual reports of the UK Health Security Agency and used to estimate the proportion of women vaccinated for each age group and calendar year.
• The relative risk reduction (RRR) in mortality among vaccinated women compared with expected rates in the absence of vaccination, assuming no herd immunity, was evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among women aged 20-24 years between 2020 and 2024 with approximately 88%-91% vaccination coverage, no deaths occurred compared with 23.1 expected deaths on the basis of the observed average rate from 2000 to 2014, corresponding to a reduction in mortality of 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%).
• Among vaccinated women, the RRR in mortality due to cervical cancer was estimated at 100% (P = .0008) in those aged 20-24 years, 100% (P < .0001) in those aged 25-29 years, and 63% (P = .094) in those aged 30-34 years.
• Mortality reductions of 80% (95% CI, 51%-94%) were observed in women aged 20-24 years during 2015-2019 and 69% (95% CI, 55%-79%) were observed in those aged 25-29 years during 2020-2024.
• Up until the end of 2024, the HPV vaccination programme in England was associated with a reduction of approximately 199.6 deaths due to cervical cancer (95% CI, 125.0-274.2) among cohorts offered vaccination.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that "we found a substantial reduction in cervical cancer mortality in women aged 20-29 years that was associated with high uptake of HPV vaccination." "This observation further supports the benefit of HPV vaccination in reducing not only the incidence of but also the mortality from a cancer that is globally still the second most common cause of cancer death in women younger than 65 years," they added. SOURCE: The study was led by Peter Sasieni, PhD, Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England. It was published online on June 17, 2026, in The Lancet.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis relied on population-level vaccination coverage data instead of individual-level status; the researchers had access to mortality data in 5-year age groups only rather than single-year cohorts, and the study assumed no herd protection among unvaccinated women within birth cohorts.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Cancer Research UK. One author reported serving as a lead investigator of a trial examining the HPV vaccine Gardasil 9 that was partially supported by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp & Dohme. Additional disclosures are listed in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

In a population-based study, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in England was associated with a 100% reduction in mortality due to cervical cancer between 2020 and 2024 among women aged 20-24 years who were mostly vaccinated at the age of 12-13 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based study using cervical cancer mortality data of women aged 20-24, 25-29, and 30-34 years from the National Disease Registration Service and Office for National Statistics in England from 2000 to 2024.
• The analysis included women from the first eligible birth cohort (born from September 1990 to August 1991) who were targeted by England's school-based HPV vaccination programme introduced in September 2008 for girls aged 12-13 years, with a catch-up programme for girls aged 14-18 years implemented in 2008-2010.
• HPV vaccination coverage by birth cohort was obtained from annual reports of the UK Health Security Agency and used to estimate the proportion of women vaccinated for each age group and calendar year.
• The relative risk reduction (RRR) in mortality among vaccinated women compared with expected rates in the absence of vaccination, assuming no herd immunity, was evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among women aged 20-24 years between 2020 and 2024 with approximately 88%-91% vaccination coverage, no deaths occurred compared with 23.1 expected deaths on the basis of the observed average rate from 2000 to 2014, corresponding to a reduction in mortality of 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%).
• Among vaccinated women, the RRR in mortality due to cervical cancer was estimated at 100% (P = .0008) in those aged 20-24 years, 100% (P < .0001) in those aged 25-29 years, and 63% (P = .094) in those aged 30-34 years.
• Mortality reductions of 80% (95% CI, 51%-94%) were observed in women aged 20-24 years during 2015-2019 and 69% (95% CI, 55%-79%) were observed in those aged 25-29 years during 2020-2024.
• Up until the end of 2024, the HPV vaccination programme in England was associated with a reduction of approximately 199.6 deaths due to cervical cancer (95% CI, 125.0-274.2) among cohorts offered vaccination.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that "we found a substantial reduction in cervical cancer mortality in women aged 20-29 years that was associated with high uptake of HPV vaccination." "This observation further supports the benefit of HPV vaccination in reducing not only the incidence of but also the mortality from a cancer that is globally still the second most common cause of cancer death in women younger than 65 years," they added. SOURCE: The study was led by Peter Sasieni, PhD, Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England. It was published online on June 17, 2026, in The Lancet.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis relied on population-level vaccination coverage data instead of individual-level status; the researchers had access to mortality data in 5-year age groups only rather than single-year cohorts, and the study assumed no herd protection among unvaccinated women within birth cohorts.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Cancer Research UK. One author reported serving as a lead investigator of a trial examining the HPV vaccine Gardasil 9 that was partially supported by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp & Dohme. Additional disclosures are listed in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

June 24 (Reuters) - The US military has resumed requiring flu vaccines for some service members in an exception to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s guidance declaring the shots voluntary 2 months ago.

The decision follows a flu outbreak among recruits at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas and sharp criticism of the policy from public health experts. More than 220 ‌recruits have been diagnosed with influenza and 4 hospitalized in the outbreak, according to media reports.

Hegseth said in April that the annual flu vaccine would become optional for all US military personnel under the Pentagon’s new vaccine policy. It ‌had previously been mandated and considered critical to troop preparedness.

The Under Secretary for War ‌Personnel and Readiness approved exception requests ‌for the Army, Navy, Air Force, National Security Agency, and Defense Health Agency, according to a statement from chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell on ‌Wednesday.

“The decisions were based upon thorough risk assessments and are designed to maximize operational readiness, lethality, ‌and force generation, while safeguarding at-risk populations,” Parnell said.

Each department is responsible for implementation, the spokesperson added.

The World Health Organization recommends the flu shot for those aged ≥ 6 months.

Trump administration Health Secretary Robert ‌F. ‌Kennedy Jr., a longtime antivaccine activist, has enacted policies that have decreased the use ‌of inoculations in the US, including dropping its 2025 flu vaccine campaign. Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement has sought to weaken school enrollment mandates around the country.

Flu vaccines from Sanofi, CSL Seqirus, GSK and AstraZeneca are approved ‌in the United States.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali, Mariam Sunny and Mrinalika Roy; Editing by Caroline Humer and Bill Berkrot)

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

June 24 (Reuters) - The US military has resumed requiring flu vaccines for some service members in an exception to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s guidance declaring the shots voluntary 2 months ago.

The decision follows a flu outbreak among recruits at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas and sharp criticism of the policy from public health experts. More than 220 ‌recruits have been diagnosed with influenza and 4 hospitalized in the outbreak, according to media reports.

Hegseth said in April that the annual flu vaccine would become optional for all US military personnel under the Pentagon’s new vaccine policy. It ‌had previously been mandated and considered critical to troop preparedness.

The Under Secretary for War ‌Personnel and Readiness approved exception requests ‌for the Army, Navy, Air Force, National Security Agency, and Defense Health Agency, according to a statement from chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell on ‌Wednesday.

“The decisions were based upon thorough risk assessments and are designed to maximize operational readiness, lethality, ‌and force generation, while safeguarding at-risk populations,” Parnell said.

Each department is responsible for implementation, the spokesperson added.

The World Health Organization recommends the flu shot for those aged ≥ 6 months.

Trump administration Health Secretary Robert ‌F. ‌Kennedy Jr., a longtime antivaccine activist, has enacted policies that have decreased the use ‌of inoculations in the US, including dropping its 2025 flu vaccine campaign. Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement has sought to weaken school enrollment mandates around the country.

Flu vaccines from Sanofi, CSL Seqirus, GSK and AstraZeneca are approved ‌in the United States.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali, Mariam Sunny and Mrinalika Roy; Editing by Caroline Humer and Bill Berkrot)

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

June 24 (Reuters) - The US military has resumed requiring flu vaccines for some service members in an exception to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s guidance declaring the shots voluntary 2 months ago.

The decision follows a flu outbreak among recruits at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas and sharp criticism of the policy from public health experts. More than 220 ‌recruits have been diagnosed with influenza and 4 hospitalized in the outbreak, according to media reports.

Hegseth said in April that the annual flu vaccine would become optional for all US military personnel under the Pentagon’s new vaccine policy. It ‌had previously been mandated and considered critical to troop preparedness.

The Under Secretary for War ‌Personnel and Readiness approved exception requests ‌for the Army, Navy, Air Force, National Security Agency, and Defense Health Agency, according to a statement from chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell on ‌Wednesday.

“The decisions were based upon thorough risk assessments and are designed to maximize operational readiness, lethality, ‌and force generation, while safeguarding at-risk populations,” Parnell said.

Each department is responsible for implementation, the spokesperson added.

The World Health Organization recommends the flu shot for those aged ≥ 6 months.

Trump administration Health Secretary Robert ‌F. ‌Kennedy Jr., a longtime antivaccine activist, has enacted policies that have decreased the use ‌of inoculations in the US, including dropping its 2025 flu vaccine campaign. Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement has sought to weaken school enrollment mandates around the country.

Flu vaccines from Sanofi, CSL Seqirus, GSK and AstraZeneca are approved ‌in the United States.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali, Mariam Sunny and Mrinalika Roy; Editing by Caroline Humer and Bill Berkrot)

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

A retrospective cohort study links clomiphene citrate (CC) to significantly lower mortality rates when compared with testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in male veterans with hypogonadism or infertility. CC is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for hypogonadism but is often used off label. Patients taking clomiphene also had significantly lower risk of diseases of the circulatory system, brain, and bones. 

The study tracked matched cohorts of 2518 patients taking CC or TRT for a mean 3.5 years. All-cause mortality was lower in the CC group (1.83%) than the TRT group (10.13%, P < .001), reported researchers at the Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, et al in Andrology.

The researchers also reported that outcomes were better in the CC group than the TRT group for new-onset hypertension (6.04% vs 10.48%, P < .001), cerebrovascular accident (0.52% vs 1.43%, P < .001), coronary artery disease (1.51% vs 2.26%, P < .048), polycythemia (1.07% vs 2.22%, P < .001), and osteoporosis (1.15% vs 2.07%, P = .009), respectively. 

“It seems like clomiphene is a good medication to be used long term, but we still need more investigation into this,” endocrinologist Mariana Garcia-Touza, MD said in an interview with Federal Practitioner. 

TRT is a common therapy for male hypogonadism, although the study notes it is linked to thickened blood, breast growth, infertility, fluid retention, obstructive sleep apnea, and cardiovascular and prostate problems. Guidelines recommend against its use in patients with prostate cancer, at high cardiovascular risk, and those trying to have children.

CC is a selective estrogen receptor modulator and used off-label to treat male hypogonadism because it can boost the production of testosterone. The study notes how many Veterans health Administration patients have low testosterone, with previous research reporting the rate among veterans aged ≥ 60 years at 34%. 

Garcia-Touza was especially interested in any effect clomiphene has on bones: “We’ve been hearing that it probably affects the bone and can cause osteoporosis, but no one has looked into it.”

The study tracked veterans from December 1990 to September 2024; follow-ups lasted up to 34 years. Patient mean ages were 46.5 and 47.5 years for the HRT and CC groups, respectively. Hypogonadism was the treatment indication for 98.4% and 64.5% and infertility was the indication for 1.6% and 35.5% for the HRT and CC groups, respectively. About 70% of both groups were White. 

There were no statistically significant gaps between the groups regarding hip fractures, pulmonary embolism, thrombosis, and vertebral fractures. Garcia-Touza said the all-cause mortality gap the study reported was surprising, although the study did not control for factors that may have differed between the groups.

“This needs to be more carefully examined to see if this is a real finding or if there is some bias in the study that is causing it,” she said.

Moving forward, Garcia-Touza said she hopes to launch a prospective study of TRT vs CC.

Parviz K. Kavoussi, MD, a reproductive urologist at the University of Texas at Austin who was not involved in the study, said in an interview the study’s findings highlight the importance of monitoring patients on TRT for an increase in hematocrit. 

“Not all testosterone replacement therapies are created equal from this standpoint,” he said, noting that risk depends on the delivery method. “There are multiple modalities — topical gels, patches, nasal gels, intramuscular injections, subcutaneous pellets, subcutaneous autoinjector pens, and oral testosterone pills. Each of these has a defined percentage risk of secondary erythrocytosis, with some being significantly higher than others.”

As for other potential risks from TRT such as a possible higher mortality rate, Kavoussi noted that a landmark 2023 trial of middle-aged and older men convinced the FDA to no longer require testosterone products to include a black-box warning about cardiovascular disease. 

Regarding the question of whether clomiphene works as well as testosterone, Kavoussi noted his group’s research has found clomiphene can normalize testosterone levels biochemically. However, “where clomiphene typically falls short in data and in clinical practice is the level of symptomatic improvement in testosterone deficiency symptoms that patients can achieve in comparison to exogenous testosterone replacement.” 

No funding was reported, and the authors – including Garcia-Touza – had no disclosures. Kavoussi discloses relationships with Halozyme and Verity.

A retrospective cohort study links clomiphene citrate (CC) to significantly lower mortality rates when compared with testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in male veterans with hypogonadism or infertility. CC is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for hypogonadism but is often used off label. Patients taking clomiphene also had significantly lower risk of diseases of the circulatory system, brain, and bones. 

The study tracked matched cohorts of 2518 patients taking CC or TRT for a mean 3.5 years. All-cause mortality was lower in the CC group (1.83%) than the TRT group (10.13%, P < .001), reported researchers at the Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, et al in Andrology.

The researchers also reported that outcomes were better in the CC group than the TRT group for new-onset hypertension (6.04% vs 10.48%, P < .001), cerebrovascular accident (0.52% vs 1.43%, P < .001), coronary artery disease (1.51% vs 2.26%, P < .048), polycythemia (1.07% vs 2.22%, P < .001), and osteoporosis (1.15% vs 2.07%, P = .009), respectively. 

“It seems like clomiphene is a good medication to be used long term, but we still need more investigation into this,” endocrinologist Mariana Garcia-Touza, MD said in an interview with Federal Practitioner. 

TRT is a common therapy for male hypogonadism, although the study notes it is linked to thickened blood, breast growth, infertility, fluid retention, obstructive sleep apnea, and cardiovascular and prostate problems. Guidelines recommend against its use in patients with prostate cancer, at high cardiovascular risk, and those trying to have children.

CC is a selective estrogen receptor modulator and used off-label to treat male hypogonadism because it can boost the production of testosterone. The study notes how many Veterans health Administration patients have low testosterone, with previous research reporting the rate among veterans aged ≥ 60 years at 34%. 

Garcia-Touza was especially interested in any effect clomiphene has on bones: “We’ve been hearing that it probably affects the bone and can cause osteoporosis, but no one has looked into it.”

The study tracked veterans from December 1990 to September 2024; follow-ups lasted up to 34 years. Patient mean ages were 46.5 and 47.5 years for the HRT and CC groups, respectively. Hypogonadism was the treatment indication for 98.4% and 64.5% and infertility was the indication for 1.6% and 35.5% for the HRT and CC groups, respectively. About 70% of both groups were White. 

There were no statistically significant gaps between the groups regarding hip fractures, pulmonary embolism, thrombosis, and vertebral fractures. Garcia-Touza said the all-cause mortality gap the study reported was surprising, although the study did not control for factors that may have differed between the groups.

“This needs to be more carefully examined to see if this is a real finding or if there is some bias in the study that is causing it,” she said.

Moving forward, Garcia-Touza said she hopes to launch a prospective study of TRT vs CC.

Parviz K. Kavoussi, MD, a reproductive urologist at the University of Texas at Austin who was not involved in the study, said in an interview the study’s findings highlight the importance of monitoring patients on TRT for an increase in hematocrit. 

“Not all testosterone replacement therapies are created equal from this standpoint,” he said, noting that risk depends on the delivery method. “There are multiple modalities — topical gels, patches, nasal gels, intramuscular injections, subcutaneous pellets, subcutaneous autoinjector pens, and oral testosterone pills. Each of these has a defined percentage risk of secondary erythrocytosis, with some being significantly higher than others.”

As for other potential risks from TRT such as a possible higher mortality rate, Kavoussi noted that a landmark 2023 trial of middle-aged and older men convinced the FDA to no longer require testosterone products to include a black-box warning about cardiovascular disease. 

Regarding the question of whether clomiphene works as well as testosterone, Kavoussi noted his group’s research has found clomiphene can normalize testosterone levels biochemically. However, “where clomiphene typically falls short in data and in clinical practice is the level of symptomatic improvement in testosterone deficiency symptoms that patients can achieve in comparison to exogenous testosterone replacement.” 

No funding was reported, and the authors – including Garcia-Touza – had no disclosures. Kavoussi discloses relationships with Halozyme and Verity.

A retrospective cohort study links clomiphene citrate (CC) to significantly lower mortality rates when compared with testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in male veterans with hypogonadism or infertility. CC is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for hypogonadism but is often used off label. Patients taking clomiphene also had significantly lower risk of diseases of the circulatory system, brain, and bones. 

The study tracked matched cohorts of 2518 patients taking CC or TRT for a mean 3.5 years. All-cause mortality was lower in the CC group (1.83%) than the TRT group (10.13%, P < .001), reported researchers at the Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, et al in Andrology.

The researchers also reported that outcomes were better in the CC group than the TRT group for new-onset hypertension (6.04% vs 10.48%, P < .001), cerebrovascular accident (0.52% vs 1.43%, P < .001), coronary artery disease (1.51% vs 2.26%, P < .048), polycythemia (1.07% vs 2.22%, P < .001), and osteoporosis (1.15% vs 2.07%, P = .009), respectively. 

“It seems like clomiphene is a good medication to be used long term, but we still need more investigation into this,” endocrinologist Mariana Garcia-Touza, MD said in an interview with Federal Practitioner. 

TRT is a common therapy for male hypogonadism, although the study notes it is linked to thickened blood, breast growth, infertility, fluid retention, obstructive sleep apnea, and cardiovascular and prostate problems. Guidelines recommend against its use in patients with prostate cancer, at high cardiovascular risk, and those trying to have children.

CC is a selective estrogen receptor modulator and used off-label to treat male hypogonadism because it can boost the production of testosterone. The study notes how many Veterans health Administration patients have low testosterone, with previous research reporting the rate among veterans aged ≥ 60 years at 34%. 

Garcia-Touza was especially interested in any effect clomiphene has on bones: “We’ve been hearing that it probably affects the bone and can cause osteoporosis, but no one has looked into it.”

The study tracked veterans from December 1990 to September 2024; follow-ups lasted up to 34 years. Patient mean ages were 46.5 and 47.5 years for the HRT and CC groups, respectively. Hypogonadism was the treatment indication for 98.4% and 64.5% and infertility was the indication for 1.6% and 35.5% for the HRT and CC groups, respectively. About 70% of both groups were White. 

There were no statistically significant gaps between the groups regarding hip fractures, pulmonary embolism, thrombosis, and vertebral fractures. Garcia-Touza said the all-cause mortality gap the study reported was surprising, although the study did not control for factors that may have differed between the groups.

“This needs to be more carefully examined to see if this is a real finding or if there is some bias in the study that is causing it,” she said.

Moving forward, Garcia-Touza said she hopes to launch a prospective study of TRT vs CC.

Parviz K. Kavoussi, MD, a reproductive urologist at the University of Texas at Austin who was not involved in the study, said in an interview the study’s findings highlight the importance of monitoring patients on TRT for an increase in hematocrit. 

“Not all testosterone replacement therapies are created equal from this standpoint,” he said, noting that risk depends on the delivery method. “There are multiple modalities — topical gels, patches, nasal gels, intramuscular injections, subcutaneous pellets, subcutaneous autoinjector pens, and oral testosterone pills. Each of these has a defined percentage risk of secondary erythrocytosis, with some being significantly higher than others.”

As for other potential risks from TRT such as a possible higher mortality rate, Kavoussi noted that a landmark 2023 trial of middle-aged and older men convinced the FDA to no longer require testosterone products to include a black-box warning about cardiovascular disease. 

Regarding the question of whether clomiphene works as well as testosterone, Kavoussi noted his group’s research has found clomiphene can normalize testosterone levels biochemically. However, “where clomiphene typically falls short in data and in clinical practice is the level of symptomatic improvement in testosterone deficiency symptoms that patients can achieve in comparison to exogenous testosterone replacement.” 

No funding was reported, and the authors – including Garcia-Touza – had no disclosures. Kavoussi discloses relationships with Halozyme and Verity.

Oral nicotinamide was cost-effective for reducing keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) risk in US veterans with a history of the disease, according to an economic analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data.

The findings, published online June 10 in JAMA Dermatology, “support strong consideration of nicotinamide for KC prevention in high-risk populations like veterans, particularly given its safety and tolerability,” wrote senior author Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, chief of the Dermatology Section at VA Boston and assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and co-authors.

Nicotinamide supplementation is “not only a cost-effective and patient-centric strategy for KC prevention, but it also remains economically favorable under a range of assumptions and may become even more cost-effective under higher procedure costs and frequency,” noted the authors.

The analysis included 33,822 individuals from the VHA database, all with a history of one or more KCs, including those with nicotinamide exposure for 30 or more days (n = 12,287) and those without that exposure (n = 21,535).

The mean ages in the unexposed and exposed cohorts were 76.9 and 77.2 years, respectively, and 98% were men. Procedural US VHA costs for KC treatment were estimated from previous research and adjusted for inflation. Nicotinamide pricing was obtained from the VHA.

KC incidence among nicotinamide-exposed and unexposed individuals was 0.204 and 0.255 events per person-year, respectively, reflecting an absolute risk reduction of 0.051 and 624 KCs prevented annually with nicotinamide supplementation.

With an estimated cost of $843 per KC, the yearly KC treatment expense was estimated at approximately $2.64 million, and the annual nicotinamide cost was estimated at $161,451, resulting in net savings of $364,581 — a 19.9% reduction in cohort-specific costs.

Assuming a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) decrement of -0.01 per KC, nicotinamide use yielded an annual gain of 6.24 QALYs across the cohort and a savings of $58,426 per QALY gained.

A calculation of non-VHA cost-effectiveness, estimated with civilian prices and distributions, showed savings of $14,407 per QALY gained.

The authors concluded that oral nicotinamide was “a cost-effective and patient-centric preventive approach for KC, particularly in individuals with KC history at high risk of multiple primary KC.”

In an accompanying editorial, Ivo Abraham, PhD, JAMA Dermatology’s associate editor for quantitative methods and chief scientist at Matrix45, a health economics research and consulting group in Tucson, Arizona, and co-authors noted that although nicotinamide “is inexpensive, widely available, and mechanistically plausible for chemoprevention of actinic keratoses and KCs…stronger evidence remains required to support clinical recommendations.”

“Broader nicotinamide implementation might impart substantial population health benefits and cost savings to the VHA,” they wrote, while also asking, “do we truly know whether nicotinamide is effective for KC chemoprevention in broader populations?” They suggested that only an adequately powered randomized clinical trial in representative nonimmunosuppressed populations would provide the answer.

“Additional randomized controlled trials in non-VHA populations would provide further insight into generalizability beyond the VA healthcare system,” Hartman told Medscape Medical News.

“We are aiming to conduct a large [randomized controlled trial] in the VA to provide a more definitive answer,” added Lee Wheless, MD, one of Hartman’s coauthors, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System VA Medical Center, both in Nashville, Tennessee. “Doing so would also give a much better estimate of any potential side effects, though we and others have found no increased rate, and sometimes even a decreased rate, of major adverse cardiovascular events.”

Sarah Arron, MD, dermatologic surgeon with Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Palo Alto, California, and Premier Aesthetic Dermatology in San Carlos, California, who was not involved in the research, said, “It is gratifying to see that in the veteran population, nicotinamide affords protection against nonmelanoma skin cancer and is a cost-effective intervention. For a healthcare system such as the VHA, providing this over-the-counter vitamin through pharmacy benefits is an excellent method for reducing the overall cost of skin cancer treatment.”

Although Arron agreed that a randomized trial would offer a higher level of evidence for this intervention, she said the real-world obstacle is that nicotinamide is such an easily available, low-cost vitamin with a high safety profile. “Patients are not likely to sign up for a possible placebo when they can purchase nicotinamide online or at the drugstore,” she said. “This was reflected in Australia; once the positive data from the ONTRAC trial was publicized, investigators on the ONTRANS trial had difficulty enrolling patients because they were already taking the vitamin. The second study closed without meeting its enrollment goals and thus did not have power to show statistical significance.”

Hartman is supported by the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Wheless is also supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Arron is a speaker for Regeneron and Castle Biosciences; a consultant for Regeneron, Replimune, Castle, Lumenis, and Enspectra Health; an unpaid ambassador for HarkenDerm, which makes sunscreen as well as a sun and eye health supplement that includes nicotinamide as one of the ingredients.

The study authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Of the editorial authors, Abraham disclosed owning stock in Matrix45, which has received contract funding from companies outside this work, one author had disclosures not related to the work, and the third author had no disclosures.

Kate Johnson is a Montreal-based freelance medical journalist who has been writing for > 30 years about all areas of medicine.

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

Oral nicotinamide was cost-effective for reducing keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) risk in US veterans with a history of the disease, according to an economic analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data.

The findings, published online June 10 in JAMA Dermatology, “support strong consideration of nicotinamide for KC prevention in high-risk populations like veterans, particularly given its safety and tolerability,” wrote senior author Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, chief of the Dermatology Section at VA Boston and assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and co-authors.

Nicotinamide supplementation is “not only a cost-effective and patient-centric strategy for KC prevention, but it also remains economically favorable under a range of assumptions and may become even more cost-effective under higher procedure costs and frequency,” noted the authors.

The analysis included 33,822 individuals from the VHA database, all with a history of one or more KCs, including those with nicotinamide exposure for 30 or more days (n = 12,287) and those without that exposure (n = 21,535).

The mean ages in the unexposed and exposed cohorts were 76.9 and 77.2 years, respectively, and 98% were men. Procedural US VHA costs for KC treatment were estimated from previous research and adjusted for inflation. Nicotinamide pricing was obtained from the VHA.

KC incidence among nicotinamide-exposed and unexposed individuals was 0.204 and 0.255 events per person-year, respectively, reflecting an absolute risk reduction of 0.051 and 624 KCs prevented annually with nicotinamide supplementation.

With an estimated cost of $843 per KC, the yearly KC treatment expense was estimated at approximately $2.64 million, and the annual nicotinamide cost was estimated at $161,451, resulting in net savings of $364,581 — a 19.9% reduction in cohort-specific costs.

Assuming a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) decrement of -0.01 per KC, nicotinamide use yielded an annual gain of 6.24 QALYs across the cohort and a savings of $58,426 per QALY gained.

A calculation of non-VHA cost-effectiveness, estimated with civilian prices and distributions, showed savings of $14,407 per QALY gained.

The authors concluded that oral nicotinamide was “a cost-effective and patient-centric preventive approach for KC, particularly in individuals with KC history at high risk of multiple primary KC.”

In an accompanying editorial, Ivo Abraham, PhD, JAMA Dermatology’s associate editor for quantitative methods and chief scientist at Matrix45, a health economics research and consulting group in Tucson, Arizona, and co-authors noted that although nicotinamide “is inexpensive, widely available, and mechanistically plausible for chemoprevention of actinic keratoses and KCs…stronger evidence remains required to support clinical recommendations.”

“Broader nicotinamide implementation might impart substantial population health benefits and cost savings to the VHA,” they wrote, while also asking, “do we truly know whether nicotinamide is effective for KC chemoprevention in broader populations?” They suggested that only an adequately powered randomized clinical trial in representative nonimmunosuppressed populations would provide the answer.

“Additional randomized controlled trials in non-VHA populations would provide further insight into generalizability beyond the VA healthcare system,” Hartman told Medscape Medical News.

“We are aiming to conduct a large [randomized controlled trial] in the VA to provide a more definitive answer,” added Lee Wheless, MD, one of Hartman’s coauthors, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System VA Medical Center, both in Nashville, Tennessee. “Doing so would also give a much better estimate of any potential side effects, though we and others have found no increased rate, and sometimes even a decreased rate, of major adverse cardiovascular events.”

Sarah Arron, MD, dermatologic surgeon with Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Palo Alto, California, and Premier Aesthetic Dermatology in San Carlos, California, who was not involved in the research, said, “It is gratifying to see that in the veteran population, nicotinamide affords protection against nonmelanoma skin cancer and is a cost-effective intervention. For a healthcare system such as the VHA, providing this over-the-counter vitamin through pharmacy benefits is an excellent method for reducing the overall cost of skin cancer treatment.”

Although Arron agreed that a randomized trial would offer a higher level of evidence for this intervention, she said the real-world obstacle is that nicotinamide is such an easily available, low-cost vitamin with a high safety profile. “Patients are not likely to sign up for a possible placebo when they can purchase nicotinamide online or at the drugstore,” she said. “This was reflected in Australia; once the positive data from the ONTRAC trial was publicized, investigators on the ONTRANS trial had difficulty enrolling patients because they were already taking the vitamin. The second study closed without meeting its enrollment goals and thus did not have power to show statistical significance.”

Hartman is supported by the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Wheless is also supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Arron is a speaker for Regeneron and Castle Biosciences; a consultant for Regeneron, Replimune, Castle, Lumenis, and Enspectra Health; an unpaid ambassador for HarkenDerm, which makes sunscreen as well as a sun and eye health supplement that includes nicotinamide as one of the ingredients.

The study authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Of the editorial authors, Abraham disclosed owning stock in Matrix45, which has received contract funding from companies outside this work, one author had disclosures not related to the work, and the third author had no disclosures.

Kate Johnson is a Montreal-based freelance medical journalist who has been writing for > 30 years about all areas of medicine.

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

Oral nicotinamide was cost-effective for reducing keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) risk in US veterans with a history of the disease, according to an economic analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data.

The findings, published online June 10 in JAMA Dermatology, “support strong consideration of nicotinamide for KC prevention in high-risk populations like veterans, particularly given its safety and tolerability,” wrote senior author Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, chief of the Dermatology Section at VA Boston and assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and co-authors.

Nicotinamide supplementation is “not only a cost-effective and patient-centric strategy for KC prevention, but it also remains economically favorable under a range of assumptions and may become even more cost-effective under higher procedure costs and frequency,” noted the authors.

The analysis included 33,822 individuals from the VHA database, all with a history of one or more KCs, including those with nicotinamide exposure for 30 or more days (n = 12,287) and those without that exposure (n = 21,535).

The mean ages in the unexposed and exposed cohorts were 76.9 and 77.2 years, respectively, and 98% were men. Procedural US VHA costs for KC treatment were estimated from previous research and adjusted for inflation. Nicotinamide pricing was obtained from the VHA.

KC incidence among nicotinamide-exposed and unexposed individuals was 0.204 and 0.255 events per person-year, respectively, reflecting an absolute risk reduction of 0.051 and 624 KCs prevented annually with nicotinamide supplementation.

With an estimated cost of $843 per KC, the yearly KC treatment expense was estimated at approximately $2.64 million, and the annual nicotinamide cost was estimated at $161,451, resulting in net savings of $364,581 — a 19.9% reduction in cohort-specific costs.

Assuming a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) decrement of -0.01 per KC, nicotinamide use yielded an annual gain of 6.24 QALYs across the cohort and a savings of $58,426 per QALY gained.

A calculation of non-VHA cost-effectiveness, estimated with civilian prices and distributions, showed savings of $14,407 per QALY gained.

The authors concluded that oral nicotinamide was “a cost-effective and patient-centric preventive approach for KC, particularly in individuals with KC history at high risk of multiple primary KC.”

In an accompanying editorial, Ivo Abraham, PhD, JAMA Dermatology’s associate editor for quantitative methods and chief scientist at Matrix45, a health economics research and consulting group in Tucson, Arizona, and co-authors noted that although nicotinamide “is inexpensive, widely available, and mechanistically plausible for chemoprevention of actinic keratoses and KCs…stronger evidence remains required to support clinical recommendations.”

“Broader nicotinamide implementation might impart substantial population health benefits and cost savings to the VHA,” they wrote, while also asking, “do we truly know whether nicotinamide is effective for KC chemoprevention in broader populations?” They suggested that only an adequately powered randomized clinical trial in representative nonimmunosuppressed populations would provide the answer.

“Additional randomized controlled trials in non-VHA populations would provide further insight into generalizability beyond the VA healthcare system,” Hartman told Medscape Medical News.

“We are aiming to conduct a large [randomized controlled trial] in the VA to provide a more definitive answer,” added Lee Wheless, MD, one of Hartman’s coauthors, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System VA Medical Center, both in Nashville, Tennessee. “Doing so would also give a much better estimate of any potential side effects, though we and others have found no increased rate, and sometimes even a decreased rate, of major adverse cardiovascular events.”

Sarah Arron, MD, dermatologic surgeon with Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Palo Alto, California, and Premier Aesthetic Dermatology in San Carlos, California, who was not involved in the research, said, “It is gratifying to see that in the veteran population, nicotinamide affords protection against nonmelanoma skin cancer and is a cost-effective intervention. For a healthcare system such as the VHA, providing this over-the-counter vitamin through pharmacy benefits is an excellent method for reducing the overall cost of skin cancer treatment.”

Although Arron agreed that a randomized trial would offer a higher level of evidence for this intervention, she said the real-world obstacle is that nicotinamide is such an easily available, low-cost vitamin with a high safety profile. “Patients are not likely to sign up for a possible placebo when they can purchase nicotinamide online or at the drugstore,” she said. “This was reflected in Australia; once the positive data from the ONTRAC trial was publicized, investigators on the ONTRANS trial had difficulty enrolling patients because they were already taking the vitamin. The second study closed without meeting its enrollment goals and thus did not have power to show statistical significance.”

Hartman is supported by the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Wheless is also supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Arron is a speaker for Regeneron and Castle Biosciences; a consultant for Regeneron, Replimune, Castle, Lumenis, and Enspectra Health; an unpaid ambassador for HarkenDerm, which makes sunscreen as well as a sun and eye health supplement that includes nicotinamide as one of the ingredients.

The study authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Of the editorial authors, Abraham disclosed owning stock in Matrix45, which has received contract funding from companies outside this work, one author had disclosures not related to the work, and the third author had no disclosures.

Kate Johnson is a Montreal-based freelance medical journalist who has been writing for > 30 years about all areas of medicine.

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

Offering lung cancer screening to everyone with a 20-year smoking history could expand access to screening, identify more cancers, and reduce disparities, new research suggests.

In an analysis of nearly 1 million US veterans, researchers estimated that a simplified approach to lung cancer screening — based on smoking duration rather than pack-years — would expand screening eligibility by nearly 30% and reduce potentially missed lung cancers by over 70%.

Those shifts would be especially pronounced among women and Black individuals — 2 groups that are underserved by current screening criteria.

The results, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, come at a time when some groups are revisiting their lung cancer screening guidelines.

And they support smoking duration as a “simpler, more sensitive, and more equitable metric for screening eligibility,” researcher Brendan T. Heiden, MD, MPHS, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, told meeting attendees.

Toward a Better Metric

Current guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years.

The 20 pack-year metric is equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. Because it requires patients to remember their smoking intensity over decades, it can be challenging to calculate and translate into care, Heiden said.

As it stands, few Americans who are eligible under current USPSTF guidelines actually undergo lung cancer screening, at about 15%-20%, Heiden noted. Meanwhile, mounting evidence suggests that many lung cancers occur in individuals who never meet those eligibility criteria.

Boosting screening uptake, Heiden said, is not enough: There’s a need to revisit eligibility itself to reach more high-risk individuals.

Some groups are already taking steps in that direction. Recently updated guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) added a category 2B recommendation supporting screening for individuals with at least a 20-year smoking history, regardless of pack-years. (The guidelines also say former smokers are eligible no matter how long ago they quit.)

For their study, Heiden’s team sought to estimate the performance of that smoking-duration metric against current USPSTF pack-year criteria. They used Veterans Health Administration data on over 980,000 veterans whose smoking histories were prospectively collected; lung cancer diagnoses were identified through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry.

Most of the included veterans (67%) had a smoking history; their mean age was 64 years, and 21% were Black.

Overall, the researchers found that basing eligibility on 20-year smoking duration would substantially expand access to screening: Among veterans with a smoking history, 68% qualified for screening under current USPSTF criteria compared with 87% using the smoking-duration approach.

The gains were especially pronounced among women and Black individuals (who, based on prior research, typically smoke less intensely than White males). Under USPSTF criteria, only about 55% of female and Black veterans qualified for screening compared with 83% for both groups under the smoking-duration criterion.

Importantly, Heiden said, people meeting the smoking-duration threshold remained at substantially elevated risk for lung cancer, suggesting the broader screening criteria were not merely capturing low-risk smokers.

The 5-year lung cancer incidence among veterans eligible under the smoking-duration approach was 1.59% — 11 times the rate of 0.14% among never smokers.

Perhaps most striking, Heiden said, the proportion of potentially missed cancers dropped from 13% with the pack-year metric to just 4% using the smoking-duration metric — a relative reduction of more than 70%.

Again, women and Black individuals would see the largest gains: Among Black veterans, potentially missed cancers fell from 25% to 6%, whereas among female veterans they declined from 22% to 7%.

Optimal Approach Still Unclear

The analysis had limitations, including a predominantly male veteran population whose smoking exposure was far greater than that of the general US population, indicating high inherent lung cancer risk.

But the results support what the NCCN has already done, according to Mary Reid, PhD, MSPH, BSN, a member of the group’s lung cancer screening guideline panel and chief of cancer screening, survivorship and mentorship at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York.

“Doing the calculation for pack-years can be difficult,” Reid told Medscape Medical News. “Smoking duration is easier to calculate and really the way to go.”

The USPSTF does not comment on individual studies outside of its recommendation development process.

At the meeting, study discussant Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, called the work “impressive,” citing the size of the cohort and strength of the data.

It’s particularly noteworthy that the simpler screening criteria improved sensitivity for all veterans, while largely eliminating disparities, according to Rendle, of the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Still, she said, further research could better define the optimal screening strategy.

“Smoking duration is a promising approach, but in my opinion, guidelines likely need to account for the underlying risk in the population,” Rendle said, noting that current smoking prevalence in the US population is about 10%.

She suggested future studies consider other smoking-duration thresholds, such as 30 or 40 years, and look at other outcomes, including life-years gained.

“It’s critical that we prioritize strategies that maximize potential benefit from screening — not just identify those at lung cancer risk — given downstream costs and burden on populations and health care systems,” Rendle said.

The study had no commercial funding. Heiden, Rendle, and Reid had no relevant disclosures.

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

Offering lung cancer screening to everyone with a 20-year smoking history could expand access to screening, identify more cancers, and reduce disparities, new research suggests.

In an analysis of nearly 1 million US veterans, researchers estimated that a simplified approach to lung cancer screening — based on smoking duration rather than pack-years — would expand screening eligibility by nearly 30% and reduce potentially missed lung cancers by over 70%.

Those shifts would be especially pronounced among women and Black individuals — 2 groups that are underserved by current screening criteria.

The results, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, come at a time when some groups are revisiting their lung cancer screening guidelines.

And they support smoking duration as a “simpler, more sensitive, and more equitable metric for screening eligibility,” researcher Brendan T. Heiden, MD, MPHS, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, told meeting attendees.

Toward a Better Metric

Current guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years.

The 20 pack-year metric is equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. Because it requires patients to remember their smoking intensity over decades, it can be challenging to calculate and translate into care, Heiden said.

As it stands, few Americans who are eligible under current USPSTF guidelines actually undergo lung cancer screening, at about 15%-20%, Heiden noted. Meanwhile, mounting evidence suggests that many lung cancers occur in individuals who never meet those eligibility criteria.

Boosting screening uptake, Heiden said, is not enough: There’s a need to revisit eligibility itself to reach more high-risk individuals.

Some groups are already taking steps in that direction. Recently updated guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) added a category 2B recommendation supporting screening for individuals with at least a 20-year smoking history, regardless of pack-years. (The guidelines also say former smokers are eligible no matter how long ago they quit.)

For their study, Heiden’s team sought to estimate the performance of that smoking-duration metric against current USPSTF pack-year criteria. They used Veterans Health Administration data on over 980,000 veterans whose smoking histories were prospectively collected; lung cancer diagnoses were identified through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry.

Most of the included veterans (67%) had a smoking history; their mean age was 64 years, and 21% were Black.

Overall, the researchers found that basing eligibility on 20-year smoking duration would substantially expand access to screening: Among veterans with a smoking history, 68% qualified for screening under current USPSTF criteria compared with 87% using the smoking-duration approach.

The gains were especially pronounced among women and Black individuals (who, based on prior research, typically smoke less intensely than White males). Under USPSTF criteria, only about 55% of female and Black veterans qualified for screening compared with 83% for both groups under the smoking-duration criterion.

Importantly, Heiden said, people meeting the smoking-duration threshold remained at substantially elevated risk for lung cancer, suggesting the broader screening criteria were not merely capturing low-risk smokers.

The 5-year lung cancer incidence among veterans eligible under the smoking-duration approach was 1.59% — 11 times the rate of 0.14% among never smokers.

Perhaps most striking, Heiden said, the proportion of potentially missed cancers dropped from 13% with the pack-year metric to just 4% using the smoking-duration metric — a relative reduction of more than 70%.

Again, women and Black individuals would see the largest gains: Among Black veterans, potentially missed cancers fell from 25% to 6%, whereas among female veterans they declined from 22% to 7%.

Optimal Approach Still Unclear

The analysis had limitations, including a predominantly male veteran population whose smoking exposure was far greater than that of the general US population, indicating high inherent lung cancer risk.

But the results support what the NCCN has already done, according to Mary Reid, PhD, MSPH, BSN, a member of the group’s lung cancer screening guideline panel and chief of cancer screening, survivorship and mentorship at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York.

“Doing the calculation for pack-years can be difficult,” Reid told Medscape Medical News. “Smoking duration is easier to calculate and really the way to go.”

The USPSTF does not comment on individual studies outside of its recommendation development process.

At the meeting, study discussant Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, called the work “impressive,” citing the size of the cohort and strength of the data.

It’s particularly noteworthy that the simpler screening criteria improved sensitivity for all veterans, while largely eliminating disparities, according to Rendle, of the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Still, she said, further research could better define the optimal screening strategy.

“Smoking duration is a promising approach, but in my opinion, guidelines likely need to account for the underlying risk in the population,” Rendle said, noting that current smoking prevalence in the US population is about 10%.

She suggested future studies consider other smoking-duration thresholds, such as 30 or 40 years, and look at other outcomes, including life-years gained.

“It’s critical that we prioritize strategies that maximize potential benefit from screening — not just identify those at lung cancer risk — given downstream costs and burden on populations and health care systems,” Rendle said.

The study had no commercial funding. Heiden, Rendle, and Reid had no relevant disclosures.

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

Offering lung cancer screening to everyone with a 20-year smoking history could expand access to screening, identify more cancers, and reduce disparities, new research suggests.

In an analysis of nearly 1 million US veterans, researchers estimated that a simplified approach to lung cancer screening — based on smoking duration rather than pack-years — would expand screening eligibility by nearly 30% and reduce potentially missed lung cancers by over 70%.

Those shifts would be especially pronounced among women and Black individuals — 2 groups that are underserved by current screening criteria.

The results, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, come at a time when some groups are revisiting their lung cancer screening guidelines.

And they support smoking duration as a “simpler, more sensitive, and more equitable metric for screening eligibility,” researcher Brendan T. Heiden, MD, MPHS, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, told meeting attendees.

Toward a Better Metric

Current guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years.

The 20 pack-year metric is equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. Because it requires patients to remember their smoking intensity over decades, it can be challenging to calculate and translate into care, Heiden said.

As it stands, few Americans who are eligible under current USPSTF guidelines actually undergo lung cancer screening, at about 15%-20%, Heiden noted. Meanwhile, mounting evidence suggests that many lung cancers occur in individuals who never meet those eligibility criteria.

Boosting screening uptake, Heiden said, is not enough: There’s a need to revisit eligibility itself to reach more high-risk individuals.

Some groups are already taking steps in that direction. Recently updated guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) added a category 2B recommendation supporting screening for individuals with at least a 20-year smoking history, regardless of pack-years. (The guidelines also say former smokers are eligible no matter how long ago they quit.)

For their study, Heiden’s team sought to estimate the performance of that smoking-duration metric against current USPSTF pack-year criteria. They used Veterans Health Administration data on over 980,000 veterans whose smoking histories were prospectively collected; lung cancer diagnoses were identified through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry.

Most of the included veterans (67%) had a smoking history; their mean age was 64 years, and 21% were Black.

Overall, the researchers found that basing eligibility on 20-year smoking duration would substantially expand access to screening: Among veterans with a smoking history, 68% qualified for screening under current USPSTF criteria compared with 87% using the smoking-duration approach.

The gains were especially pronounced among women and Black individuals (who, based on prior research, typically smoke less intensely than White males). Under USPSTF criteria, only about 55% of female and Black veterans qualified for screening compared with 83% for both groups under the smoking-duration criterion.

Importantly, Heiden said, people meeting the smoking-duration threshold remained at substantially elevated risk for lung cancer, suggesting the broader screening criteria were not merely capturing low-risk smokers.

The 5-year lung cancer incidence among veterans eligible under the smoking-duration approach was 1.59% — 11 times the rate of 0.14% among never smokers.

Perhaps most striking, Heiden said, the proportion of potentially missed cancers dropped from 13% with the pack-year metric to just 4% using the smoking-duration metric — a relative reduction of more than 70%.

Again, women and Black individuals would see the largest gains: Among Black veterans, potentially missed cancers fell from 25% to 6%, whereas among female veterans they declined from 22% to 7%.

Optimal Approach Still Unclear

The analysis had limitations, including a predominantly male veteran population whose smoking exposure was far greater than that of the general US population, indicating high inherent lung cancer risk.

But the results support what the NCCN has already done, according to Mary Reid, PhD, MSPH, BSN, a member of the group’s lung cancer screening guideline panel and chief of cancer screening, survivorship and mentorship at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York.

“Doing the calculation for pack-years can be difficult,” Reid told Medscape Medical News. “Smoking duration is easier to calculate and really the way to go.”

The USPSTF does not comment on individual studies outside of its recommendation development process.

At the meeting, study discussant Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, called the work “impressive,” citing the size of the cohort and strength of the data.

It’s particularly noteworthy that the simpler screening criteria improved sensitivity for all veterans, while largely eliminating disparities, according to Rendle, of the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Still, she said, further research could better define the optimal screening strategy.

“Smoking duration is a promising approach, but in my opinion, guidelines likely need to account for the underlying risk in the population,” Rendle said, noting that current smoking prevalence in the US population is about 10%.

She suggested future studies consider other smoking-duration thresholds, such as 30 or 40 years, and look at other outcomes, including life-years gained.

“It’s critical that we prioritize strategies that maximize potential benefit from screening — not just identify those at lung cancer risk — given downstream costs and burden on populations and health care systems,” Rendle said.

The study had no commercial funding. Heiden, Rendle, and Reid had no relevant disclosures.

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