Cardiology

TOPLINE:

Low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM), used off-label to treat alopecia, does not significantly affect blood pressure (BP) in patients with alopecia, but is associated with a slight increase in heart rate and a 5% incidence of hypotensive symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies, which involved 2387 patients with alopecia (60.7% women) who received minoxidil, a vasodilator originally developed as an antihypertensive, at doses of 5 mg or less per day.
• Outcomes included changes in mean arterial pressure, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate.
• Mean differences were calculated between pretreatment and posttreatment values.

TAKEAWAY:

• Hypotensive symptoms were reported in 5% patients, with no significant hypotensive episodes. About 1.8% patients experienced lightheadedness or syncope, 1.2% experienced dizziness, 0.9% had tachycardia, and 0.8% had palpitations.
• LDOM did not significantly alter systolic BP (mean difference, –0.13; 95% CI, –2.67 to 2.41), diastolic BP (mean difference, –1.25; 95% CI, –3.21 to 0.71), and mean arterial pressure (mean difference, –1.92; 95% CI, –4.00 to 0.17).
• LDOM led to a significant increase in heart rate (mean difference, 2.67 beats/min; 95% CI, 0.34-5.01), a difference the authors wrote would “likely not be clinically significant for most patients.”
• Hypertrichosis was the most common side effect (59.6%) and reason for stopping treatment (accounting for nearly 35% of discontinuations).

IN PRACTICE:

“LDOM appears to be a safe treatment for alopecia with no significant impact on blood pressure,” the authors wrote, noting that the study “addresses gaps in clinical knowledge involving LDOM.” Based on their results, they recommended that BP and heart rate “do not need to be closely monitored in patients without prior cardiovascular risk history.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Chen, BS, Stony Brook Dermatology in New York. It was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The studies included had small sample sizes and retrospective designs, which may limit the reliability of the findings. Additional limitations include the absence of control groups, a potential recall bias in adverse effect reporting, and variability in dosing regimens and BP monitoring. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no external funding or conflicts of interest.

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:

Low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM), used off-label to treat alopecia, does not significantly affect blood pressure (BP) in patients with alopecia, but is associated with a slight increase in heart rate and a 5% incidence of hypotensive symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies, which involved 2387 patients with alopecia (60.7% women) who received minoxidil, a vasodilator originally developed as an antihypertensive, at doses of 5 mg or less per day.
• Outcomes included changes in mean arterial pressure, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate.
• Mean differences were calculated between pretreatment and posttreatment values.

TAKEAWAY:

• Hypotensive symptoms were reported in 5% patients, with no significant hypotensive episodes. About 1.8% patients experienced lightheadedness or syncope, 1.2% experienced dizziness, 0.9% had tachycardia, and 0.8% had palpitations.
• LDOM did not significantly alter systolic BP (mean difference, –0.13; 95% CI, –2.67 to 2.41), diastolic BP (mean difference, –1.25; 95% CI, –3.21 to 0.71), and mean arterial pressure (mean difference, –1.92; 95% CI, –4.00 to 0.17).
• LDOM led to a significant increase in heart rate (mean difference, 2.67 beats/min; 95% CI, 0.34-5.01), a difference the authors wrote would “likely not be clinically significant for most patients.”
• Hypertrichosis was the most common side effect (59.6%) and reason for stopping treatment (accounting for nearly 35% of discontinuations).

IN PRACTICE:

“LDOM appears to be a safe treatment for alopecia with no significant impact on blood pressure,” the authors wrote, noting that the study “addresses gaps in clinical knowledge involving LDOM.” Based on their results, they recommended that BP and heart rate “do not need to be closely monitored in patients without prior cardiovascular risk history.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Chen, BS, Stony Brook Dermatology in New York. It was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The studies included had small sample sizes and retrospective designs, which may limit the reliability of the findings. Additional limitations include the absence of control groups, a potential recall bias in adverse effect reporting, and variability in dosing regimens and BP monitoring. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no external funding or conflicts of interest.

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:

Low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM), used off-label to treat alopecia, does not significantly affect blood pressure (BP) in patients with alopecia, but is associated with a slight increase in heart rate and a 5% incidence of hypotensive symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies, which involved 2387 patients with alopecia (60.7% women) who received minoxidil, a vasodilator originally developed as an antihypertensive, at doses of 5 mg or less per day.
• Outcomes included changes in mean arterial pressure, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate.
• Mean differences were calculated between pretreatment and posttreatment values.

TAKEAWAY:

• Hypotensive symptoms were reported in 5% patients, with no significant hypotensive episodes. About 1.8% patients experienced lightheadedness or syncope, 1.2% experienced dizziness, 0.9% had tachycardia, and 0.8% had palpitations.
• LDOM did not significantly alter systolic BP (mean difference, –0.13; 95% CI, –2.67 to 2.41), diastolic BP (mean difference, –1.25; 95% CI, –3.21 to 0.71), and mean arterial pressure (mean difference, –1.92; 95% CI, –4.00 to 0.17).
• LDOM led to a significant increase in heart rate (mean difference, 2.67 beats/min; 95% CI, 0.34-5.01), a difference the authors wrote would “likely not be clinically significant for most patients.”
• Hypertrichosis was the most common side effect (59.6%) and reason for stopping treatment (accounting for nearly 35% of discontinuations).

IN PRACTICE:

“LDOM appears to be a safe treatment for alopecia with no significant impact on blood pressure,” the authors wrote, noting that the study “addresses gaps in clinical knowledge involving LDOM.” Based on their results, they recommended that BP and heart rate “do not need to be closely monitored in patients without prior cardiovascular risk history.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Chen, BS, Stony Brook Dermatology in New York. It was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The studies included had small sample sizes and retrospective designs, which may limit the reliability of the findings. Additional limitations include the absence of control groups, a potential recall bias in adverse effect reporting, and variability in dosing regimens and BP monitoring. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no external funding or conflicts of interest.

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.

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) do not appear to increase the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated in a real-world setting, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.

This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.

Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
 

Reassurance for Dermatologists?

“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.

Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”

Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.

Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
 

Analyses Overview

For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.

To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.

For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.

In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.

Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”

The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.

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

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) do not appear to increase the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated in a real-world setting, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.

This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.

Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
 

Reassurance for Dermatologists?

“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.

Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”

Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.

Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
 

Analyses Overview

For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.

To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.

For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.

In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.

Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”

The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.

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

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) do not appear to increase the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated in a real-world setting, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.

This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.

Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
 

Reassurance for Dermatologists?

“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.

Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”

Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.

Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
 

Analyses Overview

For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.

To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.

For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.

In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.

Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”

The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.

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

TOPLINE:

Rituximab and cyclophosphamide are equally effective in achieving remission or low disease activity rates in childhood-onset antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), and those who received rituximab required a significantly lower steroid dose than those who received cyclophosphamide or a combination therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the efficacy of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, or a combination of both in pediatric patients diagnosed with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis.
• A total of 104 patients (median age at diagnosis, 14 years; 67% girls) were included from A Registry of Childhood Vasculitis; the majority had a diagnosis of GPA (81%) and renal involvement (87%). Overall, induction therapy involved rituximab for 43%, cyclophosphamide for 46%, and a combination of both for 11% patients.
• The primary endpoint was the rate of achieving remission (Pediatric Vasculitis Activity Score [PVAS] of 0) or low disease activity (PVAS ≤ 2) at the post-induction visit (4-6 months after diagnosis).
• The secondary endpoints were the degree of disease-related damage at 12- and 24-month visits and rates of drug-related hospitalization occurring between the diagnosis and post-induction visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the post-induction visit, 63% patients achieved remission or low disease activity, with the rates being similar between patients who received rituximab and those who received cyclophosphamide (64% vs 62%).
• Patients treated with rituximab required a significantly lower median steroid dose (0.13 mg/kg per day) than those treated with cyclophosphamide (0.3 mg/kg per day) or the combination therapy (0.3 mg/kg per day; P < .001) at the post-induction visit.
• Overall, 61% and 56% patients receiving rituximab and cyclophosphamide, respectively, had disease-related damage measure on the Pediatric Vasculitis Damage Index at the 12-month visit; however, the degree of damage was low.
• The percentage of patients requiring hospitalization was higher in the rituximab group than in the cyclophosphamide group (22% vs 10%), primarily stemming from drug- or infection-related causes (11% vs 2%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study may assist with current clinical decision-making with regard to the choice of induction medications in childhood-onset AAV and will complement the ongoing [Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance] prospective [consensus treatment plans] study,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Samuel J. Gagne, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the inconsistencies in glucocorticoid dosing, which may have affected remission rates. Moreover, data on the adverse events not requiring hospitalization and long-term adverse events were not captured.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding through a Nationwide Children’s Hospital intramural grant award. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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:

Rituximab and cyclophosphamide are equally effective in achieving remission or low disease activity rates in childhood-onset antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), and those who received rituximab required a significantly lower steroid dose than those who received cyclophosphamide or a combination therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the efficacy of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, or a combination of both in pediatric patients diagnosed with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis.
• A total of 104 patients (median age at diagnosis, 14 years; 67% girls) were included from A Registry of Childhood Vasculitis; the majority had a diagnosis of GPA (81%) and renal involvement (87%). Overall, induction therapy involved rituximab for 43%, cyclophosphamide for 46%, and a combination of both for 11% patients.
• The primary endpoint was the rate of achieving remission (Pediatric Vasculitis Activity Score [PVAS] of 0) or low disease activity (PVAS ≤ 2) at the post-induction visit (4-6 months after diagnosis).
• The secondary endpoints were the degree of disease-related damage at 12- and 24-month visits and rates of drug-related hospitalization occurring between the diagnosis and post-induction visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the post-induction visit, 63% patients achieved remission or low disease activity, with the rates being similar between patients who received rituximab and those who received cyclophosphamide (64% vs 62%).
• Patients treated with rituximab required a significantly lower median steroid dose (0.13 mg/kg per day) than those treated with cyclophosphamide (0.3 mg/kg per day) or the combination therapy (0.3 mg/kg per day; P < .001) at the post-induction visit.
• Overall, 61% and 56% patients receiving rituximab and cyclophosphamide, respectively, had disease-related damage measure on the Pediatric Vasculitis Damage Index at the 12-month visit; however, the degree of damage was low.
• The percentage of patients requiring hospitalization was higher in the rituximab group than in the cyclophosphamide group (22% vs 10%), primarily stemming from drug- or infection-related causes (11% vs 2%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study may assist with current clinical decision-making with regard to the choice of induction medications in childhood-onset AAV and will complement the ongoing [Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance] prospective [consensus treatment plans] study,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Samuel J. Gagne, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the inconsistencies in glucocorticoid dosing, which may have affected remission rates. Moreover, data on the adverse events not requiring hospitalization and long-term adverse events were not captured.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding through a Nationwide Children’s Hospital intramural grant award. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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:

Rituximab and cyclophosphamide are equally effective in achieving remission or low disease activity rates in childhood-onset antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), and those who received rituximab required a significantly lower steroid dose than those who received cyclophosphamide or a combination therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the efficacy of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, or a combination of both in pediatric patients diagnosed with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis.
• A total of 104 patients (median age at diagnosis, 14 years; 67% girls) were included from A Registry of Childhood Vasculitis; the majority had a diagnosis of GPA (81%) and renal involvement (87%). Overall, induction therapy involved rituximab for 43%, cyclophosphamide for 46%, and a combination of both for 11% patients.
• The primary endpoint was the rate of achieving remission (Pediatric Vasculitis Activity Score [PVAS] of 0) or low disease activity (PVAS ≤ 2) at the post-induction visit (4-6 months after diagnosis).
• The secondary endpoints were the degree of disease-related damage at 12- and 24-month visits and rates of drug-related hospitalization occurring between the diagnosis and post-induction visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the post-induction visit, 63% patients achieved remission or low disease activity, with the rates being similar between patients who received rituximab and those who received cyclophosphamide (64% vs 62%).
• Patients treated with rituximab required a significantly lower median steroid dose (0.13 mg/kg per day) than those treated with cyclophosphamide (0.3 mg/kg per day) or the combination therapy (0.3 mg/kg per day; P < .001) at the post-induction visit.
• Overall, 61% and 56% patients receiving rituximab and cyclophosphamide, respectively, had disease-related damage measure on the Pediatric Vasculitis Damage Index at the 12-month visit; however, the degree of damage was low.
• The percentage of patients requiring hospitalization was higher in the rituximab group than in the cyclophosphamide group (22% vs 10%), primarily stemming from drug- or infection-related causes (11% vs 2%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study may assist with current clinical decision-making with regard to the choice of induction medications in childhood-onset AAV and will complement the ongoing [Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance] prospective [consensus treatment plans] study,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Samuel J. Gagne, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the inconsistencies in glucocorticoid dosing, which may have affected remission rates. Moreover, data on the adverse events not requiring hospitalization and long-term adverse events were not captured.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding through a Nationwide Children’s Hospital intramural grant award. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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.

Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. The connections between health and climate have been recognized by physicians and patients even when climatology did not have the status of an exact science. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.

Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
 

Extreme Rainfall and Health

The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.

The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
 

Rain and Mortality

Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.

The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.

The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
 

Points of Concern

According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:

• Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
• Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
• Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.

The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.

The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. The connections between health and climate have been recognized by physicians and patients even when climatology did not have the status of an exact science. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.

Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
 

Extreme Rainfall and Health

The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.

The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
 

Rain and Mortality

Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.

The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.

The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
 

Points of Concern

According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:

• Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
• Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
• Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.

The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.

The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. The connections between health and climate have been recognized by physicians and patients even when climatology did not have the status of an exact science. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.

Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
 

Extreme Rainfall and Health

The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.

The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
 

Rain and Mortality

Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.

The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.

The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
 

Points of Concern

According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:

• Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
• Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
• Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.

The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.

The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research explores the link between stroke risk and regular consumption of coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol. This research roundup reviews the latest findings, highlighting both promising insights and remaining uncertainties to help guide discussions with your patients.

Coffee and Tea: Good or Bad? 

In the INTERSTROKE study, high coffee consumption (> 4 cups daily) was associated with an significantly increased risk for all strokes (odds ratio [OR], 1.37) or ischemic stroke (OR, 1.31), while low to moderate coffee had no link to increased stroke risk. In contrast, tea consumption was associated with lower odds of all stroke (OR, 0.81 for highest intake) or ischemic stroke (OR, 0.81). 

In a recent UK Biobank study, consumption of coffee or tea was associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages. 

Specifically, the investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia versus those who did not.

A recent systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis showed that each daily cup increase in tea was associated with an average 4% reduced risk for stroke and a 2% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. 

The protective effect of coffee and tea on stroke risk may be driven, in part, by flavonoids, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, as well as positive effects on vascular function.

“The advice to patients should be that coffee and tea may protect against stroke, but that sweetening either beverage with sugar probably should be minimized,” said Cheryl Bushnell, MD, MHS, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and chair of the American Stroke Association (ASA) 2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke. 

Taylor Wallace, PhD, a certified food scientist, said, “most people should consume a cup or two of unsweetened tea per day in moderation for cardiometabolic health. It is an easy step in the right direction for good health but not a cure-all.”

When it comes to coffee, adults who like it should drink it “in moderation — just lay off the cream and sugar,” said Wallace, adjunct associate professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.

“A cup or two of black coffee with low-fat or nonfat milk with breakfast is a healthy way to start the day, especially when you’re like me and have an 8-year-old that is full of energy!” Wallace said. 
 

The Skinny on Soda

When it comes to sugar-sweetened and diet beverages, data from the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, showed a 16% increased risk for stroke with one or more daily servings of sugar-sweetened or low-calorie soda per day (vs none), independent of established dietary and nondietary cardiovascular risk factors. 

In the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study of postmenopausal women, a higher intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with increased risk for all stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.23), ischemic stroke (aHR, 1.31), coronary heart disease (aHR, 1.29) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.16).

In the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort, consumption of one can of diet soda or more each day (vs none) was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for stroke and dementia over a 10-year follow-up period. 

A separate French study showed that total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased overall risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

However, given the limitations of these studies, it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions, Wallace cautioned. 

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are correlated with weight gain and cardiometabolic dysfunction promotion in children and adults,” he said. 

Yet, “there really isn’t any convincing evidence that diet soda has much impact on human health at all. Most observational studies are mixed and likely very confounded by other diet and lifestyle factors. That doesn’t mean go overboard; a daily diet soda is probably fine, but that doesn’t mean go drink 10 of them every day,” he added. 
 

Alcohol: Moderation or Abstinence?

Evidence on alcohol use and stroke risk have been mixed over the years. For decades, the evidence was suggestive that a moderate amount of alcohol daily (one to two drinks in men and one drink in women) may be beneficial at reducing major vascular outcomes.

Yet, over the past few years, some research has found no evidence of benefit with moderate alcohol intake. And the detrimental effects of excessive alcohol use are clear. 

A large meta-analysis showed that light to moderate alcohol consumption (up to one drink per day) was associated with a reduced risk for ischemic stroke. However, heavy drinking (more than two drinks per day) significantly increased the risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.

A separate study showed young adults who are moderate to heavy drinkers are at increased risk for stroke — and the risk increases with more years of imbibing.

In the INTERSTROKE study, high to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with increased stroke risk, whereas low alcohol consumption conferred no increased risk. 

However, Bushnell pointed out that the study data was derived from based on self-report, and that other healthy behaviors may counteract the risk for alcohol consumption.

“For alcohol, regardless of stroke risk, the most important data shows that any alcohol consumption is associated with worse cognitive function, so generally, the lower the alcohol consumption the better,” Bushnell said. 

She noted that, currently, the American Heart Association (AHA)/ASA recommend a maximum of two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women to reduce stroke risk.

“However, the data for the risk for cognitive impairment with any alcohol is convincing and should be kept in mind in addition to the maximum alcohol recommended by the AHA/ASA,” Bushnell advised. 

“We know excessive intake puts you at major risk for CVD, cancer, cognitive decline, and a whole host of other health ailments — no question there,” said Wallace.

The impact of moderate intake, on the other hand, is less clear. “Alcohol is a highly biased and political issue and the evidence (or lack thereof) on both sides is shoddy at best,” Wallace added.

A key challenge is that accurate self-reporting of alcohol intake is difficult, even for scientists, and most studies rely on self-reported data from observational cohorts. These often include limited dietary assessments, which provide only a partial picture of long-term consumption patterns, Wallace noted. 

“The short answer is we don’t know if moderation is beneficial, detrimental, or null with respect to health,” he said.

Bushnell reports no relevant disclosures. Wallace (www.drtaylorwallace.com) is CEO of Think Healthy Group; editor of The Journal of Dietary Supplements, deputy editor of The Journal of the American Nutrition Association (www.nutrition.org), nutrition section editor of Annals of Medicine, and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research explores the link between stroke risk and regular consumption of coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol. This research roundup reviews the latest findings, highlighting both promising insights and remaining uncertainties to help guide discussions with your patients.

Coffee and Tea: Good or Bad? 

In the INTERSTROKE study, high coffee consumption (> 4 cups daily) was associated with an significantly increased risk for all strokes (odds ratio [OR], 1.37) or ischemic stroke (OR, 1.31), while low to moderate coffee had no link to increased stroke risk. In contrast, tea consumption was associated with lower odds of all stroke (OR, 0.81 for highest intake) or ischemic stroke (OR, 0.81). 

In a recent UK Biobank study, consumption of coffee or tea was associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages. 

Specifically, the investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia versus those who did not.

A recent systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis showed that each daily cup increase in tea was associated with an average 4% reduced risk for stroke and a 2% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. 

The protective effect of coffee and tea on stroke risk may be driven, in part, by flavonoids, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, as well as positive effects on vascular function.

“The advice to patients should be that coffee and tea may protect against stroke, but that sweetening either beverage with sugar probably should be minimized,” said Cheryl Bushnell, MD, MHS, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and chair of the American Stroke Association (ASA) 2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke. 

Taylor Wallace, PhD, a certified food scientist, said, “most people should consume a cup or two of unsweetened tea per day in moderation for cardiometabolic health. It is an easy step in the right direction for good health but not a cure-all.”

When it comes to coffee, adults who like it should drink it “in moderation — just lay off the cream and sugar,” said Wallace, adjunct associate professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.

“A cup or two of black coffee with low-fat or nonfat milk with breakfast is a healthy way to start the day, especially when you’re like me and have an 8-year-old that is full of energy!” Wallace said. 
 

The Skinny on Soda

When it comes to sugar-sweetened and diet beverages, data from the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, showed a 16% increased risk for stroke with one or more daily servings of sugar-sweetened or low-calorie soda per day (vs none), independent of established dietary and nondietary cardiovascular risk factors. 

In the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study of postmenopausal women, a higher intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with increased risk for all stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.23), ischemic stroke (aHR, 1.31), coronary heart disease (aHR, 1.29) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.16).

In the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort, consumption of one can of diet soda or more each day (vs none) was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for stroke and dementia over a 10-year follow-up period. 

A separate French study showed that total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased overall risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

However, given the limitations of these studies, it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions, Wallace cautioned. 

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are correlated with weight gain and cardiometabolic dysfunction promotion in children and adults,” he said. 

Yet, “there really isn’t any convincing evidence that diet soda has much impact on human health at all. Most observational studies are mixed and likely very confounded by other diet and lifestyle factors. That doesn’t mean go overboard; a daily diet soda is probably fine, but that doesn’t mean go drink 10 of them every day,” he added. 
 

Alcohol: Moderation or Abstinence?

Evidence on alcohol use and stroke risk have been mixed over the years. For decades, the evidence was suggestive that a moderate amount of alcohol daily (one to two drinks in men and one drink in women) may be beneficial at reducing major vascular outcomes.

Yet, over the past few years, some research has found no evidence of benefit with moderate alcohol intake. And the detrimental effects of excessive alcohol use are clear. 

A large meta-analysis showed that light to moderate alcohol consumption (up to one drink per day) was associated with a reduced risk for ischemic stroke. However, heavy drinking (more than two drinks per day) significantly increased the risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.

A separate study showed young adults who are moderate to heavy drinkers are at increased risk for stroke — and the risk increases with more years of imbibing.

In the INTERSTROKE study, high to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with increased stroke risk, whereas low alcohol consumption conferred no increased risk. 

However, Bushnell pointed out that the study data was derived from based on self-report, and that other healthy behaviors may counteract the risk for alcohol consumption.

“For alcohol, regardless of stroke risk, the most important data shows that any alcohol consumption is associated with worse cognitive function, so generally, the lower the alcohol consumption the better,” Bushnell said. 

She noted that, currently, the American Heart Association (AHA)/ASA recommend a maximum of two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women to reduce stroke risk.

“However, the data for the risk for cognitive impairment with any alcohol is convincing and should be kept in mind in addition to the maximum alcohol recommended by the AHA/ASA,” Bushnell advised. 

“We know excessive intake puts you at major risk for CVD, cancer, cognitive decline, and a whole host of other health ailments — no question there,” said Wallace.

The impact of moderate intake, on the other hand, is less clear. “Alcohol is a highly biased and political issue and the evidence (or lack thereof) on both sides is shoddy at best,” Wallace added.

A key challenge is that accurate self-reporting of alcohol intake is difficult, even for scientists, and most studies rely on self-reported data from observational cohorts. These often include limited dietary assessments, which provide only a partial picture of long-term consumption patterns, Wallace noted. 

“The short answer is we don’t know if moderation is beneficial, detrimental, or null with respect to health,” he said.

Bushnell reports no relevant disclosures. Wallace (www.drtaylorwallace.com) is CEO of Think Healthy Group; editor of The Journal of Dietary Supplements, deputy editor of The Journal of the American Nutrition Association (www.nutrition.org), nutrition section editor of Annals of Medicine, and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research explores the link between stroke risk and regular consumption of coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol. This research roundup reviews the latest findings, highlighting both promising insights and remaining uncertainties to help guide discussions with your patients.

Coffee and Tea: Good or Bad? 

In the INTERSTROKE study, high coffee consumption (> 4 cups daily) was associated with an significantly increased risk for all strokes (odds ratio [OR], 1.37) or ischemic stroke (OR, 1.31), while low to moderate coffee had no link to increased stroke risk. In contrast, tea consumption was associated with lower odds of all stroke (OR, 0.81 for highest intake) or ischemic stroke (OR, 0.81). 

In a recent UK Biobank study, consumption of coffee or tea was associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages. 

Specifically, the investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia versus those who did not.

A recent systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis showed that each daily cup increase in tea was associated with an average 4% reduced risk for stroke and a 2% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. 

The protective effect of coffee and tea on stroke risk may be driven, in part, by flavonoids, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, as well as positive effects on vascular function.

“The advice to patients should be that coffee and tea may protect against stroke, but that sweetening either beverage with sugar probably should be minimized,” said Cheryl Bushnell, MD, MHS, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and chair of the American Stroke Association (ASA) 2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke. 

Taylor Wallace, PhD, a certified food scientist, said, “most people should consume a cup or two of unsweetened tea per day in moderation for cardiometabolic health. It is an easy step in the right direction for good health but not a cure-all.”

When it comes to coffee, adults who like it should drink it “in moderation — just lay off the cream and sugar,” said Wallace, adjunct associate professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.

“A cup or two of black coffee with low-fat or nonfat milk with breakfast is a healthy way to start the day, especially when you’re like me and have an 8-year-old that is full of energy!” Wallace said. 
 

The Skinny on Soda

When it comes to sugar-sweetened and diet beverages, data from the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, showed a 16% increased risk for stroke with one or more daily servings of sugar-sweetened or low-calorie soda per day (vs none), independent of established dietary and nondietary cardiovascular risk factors. 

In the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study of postmenopausal women, a higher intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with increased risk for all stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.23), ischemic stroke (aHR, 1.31), coronary heart disease (aHR, 1.29) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.16).

In the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort, consumption of one can of diet soda or more each day (vs none) was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for stroke and dementia over a 10-year follow-up period. 

A separate French study showed that total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased overall risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

However, given the limitations of these studies, it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions, Wallace cautioned. 

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are correlated with weight gain and cardiometabolic dysfunction promotion in children and adults,” he said. 

Yet, “there really isn’t any convincing evidence that diet soda has much impact on human health at all. Most observational studies are mixed and likely very confounded by other diet and lifestyle factors. That doesn’t mean go overboard; a daily diet soda is probably fine, but that doesn’t mean go drink 10 of them every day,” he added. 
 

Alcohol: Moderation or Abstinence?

Evidence on alcohol use and stroke risk have been mixed over the years. For decades, the evidence was suggestive that a moderate amount of alcohol daily (one to two drinks in men and one drink in women) may be beneficial at reducing major vascular outcomes.

Yet, over the past few years, some research has found no evidence of benefit with moderate alcohol intake. And the detrimental effects of excessive alcohol use are clear. 

A large meta-analysis showed that light to moderate alcohol consumption (up to one drink per day) was associated with a reduced risk for ischemic stroke. However, heavy drinking (more than two drinks per day) significantly increased the risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.

A separate study showed young adults who are moderate to heavy drinkers are at increased risk for stroke — and the risk increases with more years of imbibing.

In the INTERSTROKE study, high to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with increased stroke risk, whereas low alcohol consumption conferred no increased risk. 

However, Bushnell pointed out that the study data was derived from based on self-report, and that other healthy behaviors may counteract the risk for alcohol consumption.

“For alcohol, regardless of stroke risk, the most important data shows that any alcohol consumption is associated with worse cognitive function, so generally, the lower the alcohol consumption the better,” Bushnell said. 

She noted that, currently, the American Heart Association (AHA)/ASA recommend a maximum of two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women to reduce stroke risk.

“However, the data for the risk for cognitive impairment with any alcohol is convincing and should be kept in mind in addition to the maximum alcohol recommended by the AHA/ASA,” Bushnell advised. 

“We know excessive intake puts you at major risk for CVD, cancer, cognitive decline, and a whole host of other health ailments — no question there,” said Wallace.

The impact of moderate intake, on the other hand, is less clear. “Alcohol is a highly biased and political issue and the evidence (or lack thereof) on both sides is shoddy at best,” Wallace added.

A key challenge is that accurate self-reporting of alcohol intake is difficult, even for scientists, and most studies rely on self-reported data from observational cohorts. These often include limited dietary assessments, which provide only a partial picture of long-term consumption patterns, Wallace noted. 

“The short answer is we don’t know if moderation is beneficial, detrimental, or null with respect to health,” he said.

Bushnell reports no relevant disclosures. Wallace (www.drtaylorwallace.com) is CEO of Think Healthy Group; editor of The Journal of Dietary Supplements, deputy editor of The Journal of the American Nutrition Association (www.nutrition.org), nutrition section editor of Annals of Medicine, and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a world that is more connected than ever, a silent epidemic is taking its toll. Overall, one in three US adults report chronic loneliness — a condition so detrimental that it rivals smoking and obesity with respect to its negative effect on health and well-being. From anxiety and depression to life-threatening conditions like cardiovascular disease, stroke, and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, loneliness is more than an emotion — it’s a serious threat to both the brain and body.

In 2023, a US Surgeon General advisory raised the alarm about the national problem of loneliness and isolation, describing it as an epidemic.

“Given the significant health consequences of loneliness and isolation, we must prioritize building social connection in the same way we have prioritized other critical public health issues such as tobacco, obesity, and substance use disorders. Together, we can build a country that’s healthier, more resilient, less lonely, and more connected,” the report concluded.

But how, exactly, does chronic loneliness affect the physiology and function of the brain? What does the latest research reveal about the link between loneliness and neurologic and psychiatric illness, and what can clinicians do to address the issue?

This news organization spoke to multiple experts in the field to explore these issues.
 

A Major Risk Factor

Anna Finley, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at North Dakota State University, Fargo, explained that loneliness and social isolation are different entities. Social isolation is an objective measure of the number of people someone interacts with on a regular basis, whereas loneliness is a subjective feeling that occurs when close connections are lacking.

“These two things are not actually as related as you think they would be. People can feel lonely in a crowd or feel well connected with only a few friendships. It’s more about the quality of the connection and the quality of your perception of it. So someone could be in some very supportive relationships but still feel that there’s something missing,” she said in an interview.

So what do we know about how loneliness affects health? Evidence supporting the hypothesis that loneliness is an emerging risk factor for many diseases is steadily building.

Recently, the American Heart Association published a statement summarizing the evidence for a direct association between social isolation and loneliness and coronary heart disease and stroke mortality.

In addition, many studies have shown that individuals experiencing social isolation or loneliness have an increased risk for anxiety and depression, dementia, infectious disease, hospitalization, and all-cause death, even after adjusting for age and many other traditional risk factors.

One study revealed that eliminating loneliness has the potential to prevent nearly 20% of cases of depression in adults aged 50 years or older.

Indu Subramanian, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues conducted a study involving patients with Parkinson’s disease, which showed that the negative impact of loneliness on disease severity was as significant as the positive effects of 30 minutes of daily exercise.

“The importance of loneliness is under-recognized and undervalued, and it poses a major risk for health outcomes and quality of life,” said Subramanian.

Subramanian noted that loneliness is stigmatizing, causing people to feel unlikable and blame themselves, which prevents them from opening up to doctors or loved ones about their struggle. At the same time, healthcare providers may not think to ask about loneliness or know about potential interventions. She emphasized that much more work is needed to address this issue.
 

Early Mortality Risk

Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, is the author of two large meta-analyses that suggest loneliness, social isolation, or living alone are independent risk factors for early mortality, increasing this risk by about a third — the equivalent to the risk of smoking 15 cigarettes per day.

“We have quite robust evidence across a number of health outcomes implicating the harmful effects of loneliness and social isolation. While these are observational studies and show mainly associations, we do have evidence from longitudinal studies that show lacking social connection, whether that be loneliness or social isolation, predicts subsequent worse outcomes, and most of these studies have adjusted for alternative kinds of explanations, like age, initial health status, lifestyle factors,” Holt-Lunstad said.

There is some evidence to suggest that isolation is more predictive of physical health outcomes, whereas loneliness is more predictive of mental health outcomes. That said, both isolation and loneliness have significant effects on mental and physical health outcomes, she noted.

There is also the question of whether loneliness is causing poor health or whether people who are in poor health feel lonely because poor health can lead to social isolation.

Finley said there’s probably a bit of both going on, but longitudinal studies, where loneliness is measured at a fixed timepoint then health outcomes are reported a few years later, suggest that loneliness is contributing to these adverse outcomes.

She added that there is also some evidence in animal models to suggest that loneliness is a causal risk factor for adverse health outcomes. “But you can’t ask a mouse or rat how lonely they’re feeling. All you can do is house them individually — removing them from social connection. This isn’t necessarily the same thing as loneliness in humans.”

Finley is studying mechanisms in the brain that may be involved in mediating the adverse health consequences of loneliness.

“What I’ve been seeing in the data so far is that it tends to be the self-report of how lonely folks are feeling that has the associations with differences in the brain, as opposed to the number of social connections people have. It does seem to be the more subjective, emotional perception of loneliness that is important.”

In a review of potential mechanisms involved, she concluded that it is dysregulated emotions and altered perceptions of social interactions that has profound impacts on the brain, suggesting that people who are lonely may have a tendency to interpret social cues in a negative way, preventing them from forming productive positive relationships.
 

Lack of Trust

One researcher who has studied this phenomenon is Dirk Scheele, PhD, professor of social neuroscience at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany.

“We were interested to find out why people remained lonely,” he said in an interview. “Loneliness is an unpleasant experience, and there are so many opportunities for social contacts nowadays, it’s not really clear at first sight why people are chronically lonely.”

To examine this question, Scheele and his team conducted a study in which functional MRI was used to examine the brain in otherwise healthy individuals with high or low loneliness scores while they played a trust game.

They also simulated a positive social interaction between participants and researchers, in which they talked about plans for a fictitious lottery win, and about their hobbies and interests, during which mood was measured with questionnaires, and saliva samples were collected to measure hormone levels.

Results showed that the high-lonely individuals had reduced activation in the insula cortex during the trust decisions. “This area of the brain is involved in the processing of bodily signals, such as ‘gut feelings.’ So reduced activity here could be interpreted as fewer gut feelings on who can be trusted,” Scheele explained.

The high-lonely individuals also had reduced responsiveness to the positive social interaction with a lower release of oxytocin and a smaller elevation in mood compared with the control individuals.

Scheele pointed out that there is some evidence that oxytocin might increase trust, and there is reduced release of endogenous oxytocin in high loneliness.

“Our results are consistent with the idea that loneliness is associated with negative biases about other people. So if we expect negative things from other people — for instance, that they cannot be trusted — then that would hamper further social interactions and could lead to loneliness,” he added.
 

A Role for Oxytocin?

In another study, the same researchers tested short-term (five weekly sessions) group psychotherapy to reduce loneliness using established techniques to target these negative biases. They also investigated whether the effects of this group psychotherapy could be augmented by administering intranasal oxytocin (vs placebo) before the group psychotherapy sessions.

Results showed that the group psychotherapy intervention reduced trait loneliness (loneliness experienced over a prolonged period). The oxytocin did not show a significant effect on trait loneliness, but there was a suggestion that it may enhance the reduction in state loneliness (how someone is feeling at a specific time) brought about by the psychotherapy sessions.

“We found that bonding within the groups was experienced as more positive in the oxytocin treated groups. It is possible that a longer intervention would be helpful for longer-term results,” Scheele concluded. “It’s not going to be a quick fix for loneliness, but there may be a role for oxytocin as an adjunct to psychotherapy.”
 

A Basic Human Need

Another loneliness researcher, Livia Tomova, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at Cardiff University in Wales, has used social isolation to induce loneliness in young people and found that this intervention was linked to brain patterns similar to those associated with hunger.

“We know that the drive to eat food is a very basic human need. We know quite well how it is represented in the brain,” she explained.

The researchers tested how the brains of the participants responded to seeing pictures of social interactions after they underwent a prolonged period of social isolation. In a subsequent session, the same people were asked to undergo food fasting and then underwent brain scans when looking at pictures of food. Results showed that the neural patterns were similar in the two situations with increased activity in the substantia nigra area within the midbrain.

“This area of the brain processes rewards and motivation. It consists primarily of dopamine neurons and increased activity corresponds to a feeling of craving something. So this area of the brain that controls essential homeostatic needs is activated when people feel lonely, suggesting that our need for social contact with others is potentially a very basic need similar to eating,” Tomova said.
 

Lower Gray Matter Volumes in Key Brain Areas

And another group from Germany has found that higher loneliness scores are negatively associated with specific brain regions responsible for memory, emotion regulation, and social processing.

Sandra Düzel, PhD, and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, both in Berlin, Germany, reported a study in which individuals who reported higher loneliness had smaller gray matter volumes in brain regions such as the left amygdala, anterior hippocampus, and cerebellum, regions which are crucial for both emotional regulation and higher-order cognitive processes, such as self-reflection and executive function.

Düzel believes that possible mechanisms behind the link between loneliness and brain volume differences could include stress-related damage, with prolonged loneliness associated with elevated levels of stress hormones, which can damage the hippocampus over time, and reduced cognitive and social stimulation, which may contribute to brain volume reductions in regions critical for memory and emotional processing.

“Loneliness is often characterized by reduced social and environmental diversity, leading to less engagement with novel experiences and potentially lower hippocampal-striatal connectivity.

Since novelty-seeking and environmental diversity are associated with positive emotional states, individuals experiencing loneliness might benefit from increased exposure to new environments which could stimulate the brain’s reward circuits, fostering positive affect and potentially mitigating the emotional burden of loneliness,” she said.
 

Is Social Prescribing the Answer?

So are there enough data now to act and attempt to develop interventions to reduce loneliness? Most of these researchers believe so.

“I think we have enough information to act on this now. There are a number of national academies consensus reports, which suggest that, while certainly there are still gaps in our evidence and more to be learned, there is sufficient evidence that a concerning portion of the population seems to lack connection, and that the consequences are serious enough that we need to do something about it,” said Holt-Lunstad.

Some countries have introduced social prescribing where doctors can prescribe a group activity or a regular visit or telephone conversation with a supportive person.

Subramanian pointed out that it’s easier to implement in countries with national health services and may be more difficult to embrace in the US healthcare system.

“We are not so encouraged from a financial perspective to think about preventive care in the US. We don’t have an easy way to recognize in any tangible way the downstream of such activities in terms of preventing future problems. That is something we need to work on,” she said.

Finley cautioned that to work well, social prescribing will require an understanding of each person’s individual situation.

“Some people may only receive benefit of interacting with others if they are also getting some sort of support to address the social and emotional concerns that are tagging along with loneliness. I’m not sure that just telling people to go join their local gardening club or whatever will be the correct answer for everyone.”

She pointed out that many people will have issues in their life that are making it hard for them to be social. These could be mobility or financial challenges, care responsibilities, or concerns about illnesses or life events. “We need to figure out what would have the most bang for the person’s buck, so to speak, as an intervention. That could mean connecting them to a group relevant to their individual situation.”
 

Opportunity to Connect Not Enough?

Tomova believes that training people in social skills may be a better option. “It appears that some people who are chronically lonely seem to struggle to make relationships with others. So just encouraging them to interact with others more will not necessarily help. We need to better understand the pathways involved and who are the people who become ill. We can then develop and target better interventions and teach people coping strategies for that situation.”

Scheele agreed. “While just giving people the opportunity to connect may work for some, others who are experiencing really chronic loneliness may not benefit very much from this unless their negative belief systems are addressed.” He suggested some sort of psychotherapy may be helpful in this situation.

But at least all seem to agree that healthcare providers need to be more aware of loneliness as a health risk factor, try to identify people at risk, and to think about how best to support them.

Holt-Lunstad noted that one of the recommendations in the US Surgeon General’s advisory was to increase the education, training, and resources on loneliness for healthcare providers.

“If we want this to be addressed, we need to give healthcare providers the time, resources, and training in order to do that, otherwise, we are adding one more thing to an already overburdened system. They need to understand how important it is, and how it might help them take care of the patient.”

“Our hope is that we can start to reverse some of the trends that we are seeing, both in terms of the prevalence rates of loneliness, but also that we could start seeing improvements in health and other kinds of outcomes,” she concluded.

Progress is being made in increasing awareness about the dangers of chronic loneliness. It’s now recognized as a serious health risk, but there are actionable steps that can help. Loneliness doesn’t have to be a permanent condition for anyone, said Scheele.

Holt-Lunstad served as an adviser for Foundation for Social Connection, Global Initiative on Loneliness and Connection, and Nextdoor Neighborhood Vitality Board and received research grants/income from Templeton Foundation, Eventbrite, Foundation for Social Connection, and Triple-S Foundation. Subramanian served as a speaker bureau for Acorda Pharma. The other researchers reported no disclosures.

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

In a world that is more connected than ever, a silent epidemic is taking its toll. Overall, one in three US adults report chronic loneliness — a condition so detrimental that it rivals smoking and obesity with respect to its negative effect on health and well-being. From anxiety and depression to life-threatening conditions like cardiovascular disease, stroke, and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, loneliness is more than an emotion — it’s a serious threat to both the brain and body.

In 2023, a US Surgeon General advisory raised the alarm about the national problem of loneliness and isolation, describing it as an epidemic.

“Given the significant health consequences of loneliness and isolation, we must prioritize building social connection in the same way we have prioritized other critical public health issues such as tobacco, obesity, and substance use disorders. Together, we can build a country that’s healthier, more resilient, less lonely, and more connected,” the report concluded.

But how, exactly, does chronic loneliness affect the physiology and function of the brain? What does the latest research reveal about the link between loneliness and neurologic and psychiatric illness, and what can clinicians do to address the issue?

This news organization spoke to multiple experts in the field to explore these issues.
 

A Major Risk Factor

Anna Finley, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at North Dakota State University, Fargo, explained that loneliness and social isolation are different entities. Social isolation is an objective measure of the number of people someone interacts with on a regular basis, whereas loneliness is a subjective feeling that occurs when close connections are lacking.

“These two things are not actually as related as you think they would be. People can feel lonely in a crowd or feel well connected with only a few friendships. It’s more about the quality of the connection and the quality of your perception of it. So someone could be in some very supportive relationships but still feel that there’s something missing,” she said in an interview.

So what do we know about how loneliness affects health? Evidence supporting the hypothesis that loneliness is an emerging risk factor for many diseases is steadily building.

Recently, the American Heart Association published a statement summarizing the evidence for a direct association between social isolation and loneliness and coronary heart disease and stroke mortality.

In addition, many studies have shown that individuals experiencing social isolation or loneliness have an increased risk for anxiety and depression, dementia, infectious disease, hospitalization, and all-cause death, even after adjusting for age and many other traditional risk factors.

One study revealed that eliminating loneliness has the potential to prevent nearly 20% of cases of depression in adults aged 50 years or older.

Indu Subramanian, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues conducted a study involving patients with Parkinson’s disease, which showed that the negative impact of loneliness on disease severity was as significant as the positive effects of 30 minutes of daily exercise.

“The importance of loneliness is under-recognized and undervalued, and it poses a major risk for health outcomes and quality of life,” said Subramanian.

Subramanian noted that loneliness is stigmatizing, causing people to feel unlikable and blame themselves, which prevents them from opening up to doctors or loved ones about their struggle. At the same time, healthcare providers may not think to ask about loneliness or know about potential interventions. She emphasized that much more work is needed to address this issue.
 

Early Mortality Risk

Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, is the author of two large meta-analyses that suggest loneliness, social isolation, or living alone are independent risk factors for early mortality, increasing this risk by about a third — the equivalent to the risk of smoking 15 cigarettes per day.

“We have quite robust evidence across a number of health outcomes implicating the harmful effects of loneliness and social isolation. While these are observational studies and show mainly associations, we do have evidence from longitudinal studies that show lacking social connection, whether that be loneliness or social isolation, predicts subsequent worse outcomes, and most of these studies have adjusted for alternative kinds of explanations, like age, initial health status, lifestyle factors,” Holt-Lunstad said.

There is some evidence to suggest that isolation is more predictive of physical health outcomes, whereas loneliness is more predictive of mental health outcomes. That said, both isolation and loneliness have significant effects on mental and physical health outcomes, she noted.

There is also the question of whether loneliness is causing poor health or whether people who are in poor health feel lonely because poor health can lead to social isolation.

Finley said there’s probably a bit of both going on, but longitudinal studies, where loneliness is measured at a fixed timepoint then health outcomes are reported a few years later, suggest that loneliness is contributing to these adverse outcomes.

She added that there is also some evidence in animal models to suggest that loneliness is a causal risk factor for adverse health outcomes. “But you can’t ask a mouse or rat how lonely they’re feeling. All you can do is house them individually — removing them from social connection. This isn’t necessarily the same thing as loneliness in humans.”

Finley is studying mechanisms in the brain that may be involved in mediating the adverse health consequences of loneliness.

“What I’ve been seeing in the data so far is that it tends to be the self-report of how lonely folks are feeling that has the associations with differences in the brain, as opposed to the number of social connections people have. It does seem to be the more subjective, emotional perception of loneliness that is important.”

In a review of potential mechanisms involved, she concluded that it is dysregulated emotions and altered perceptions of social interactions that has profound impacts on the brain, suggesting that people who are lonely may have a tendency to interpret social cues in a negative way, preventing them from forming productive positive relationships.
 

Lack of Trust

One researcher who has studied this phenomenon is Dirk Scheele, PhD, professor of social neuroscience at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany.

“We were interested to find out why people remained lonely,” he said in an interview. “Loneliness is an unpleasant experience, and there are so many opportunities for social contacts nowadays, it’s not really clear at first sight why people are chronically lonely.”

To examine this question, Scheele and his team conducted a study in which functional MRI was used to examine the brain in otherwise healthy individuals with high or low loneliness scores while they played a trust game.

They also simulated a positive social interaction between participants and researchers, in which they talked about plans for a fictitious lottery win, and about their hobbies and interests, during which mood was measured with questionnaires, and saliva samples were collected to measure hormone levels.

Results showed that the high-lonely individuals had reduced activation in the insula cortex during the trust decisions. “This area of the brain is involved in the processing of bodily signals, such as ‘gut feelings.’ So reduced activity here could be interpreted as fewer gut feelings on who can be trusted,” Scheele explained.

The high-lonely individuals also had reduced responsiveness to the positive social interaction with a lower release of oxytocin and a smaller elevation in mood compared with the control individuals.

Scheele pointed out that there is some evidence that oxytocin might increase trust, and there is reduced release of endogenous oxytocin in high loneliness.

“Our results are consistent with the idea that loneliness is associated with negative biases about other people. So if we expect negative things from other people — for instance, that they cannot be trusted — then that would hamper further social interactions and could lead to loneliness,” he added.
 

A Role for Oxytocin?

In another study, the same researchers tested short-term (five weekly sessions) group psychotherapy to reduce loneliness using established techniques to target these negative biases. They also investigated whether the effects of this group psychotherapy could be augmented by administering intranasal oxytocin (vs placebo) before the group psychotherapy sessions.

Results showed that the group psychotherapy intervention reduced trait loneliness (loneliness experienced over a prolonged period). The oxytocin did not show a significant effect on trait loneliness, but there was a suggestion that it may enhance the reduction in state loneliness (how someone is feeling at a specific time) brought about by the psychotherapy sessions.

“We found that bonding within the groups was experienced as more positive in the oxytocin treated groups. It is possible that a longer intervention would be helpful for longer-term results,” Scheele concluded. “It’s not going to be a quick fix for loneliness, but there may be a role for oxytocin as an adjunct to psychotherapy.”
 

A Basic Human Need

Another loneliness researcher, Livia Tomova, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at Cardiff University in Wales, has used social isolation to induce loneliness in young people and found that this intervention was linked to brain patterns similar to those associated with hunger.

“We know that the drive to eat food is a very basic human need. We know quite well how it is represented in the brain,” she explained.

The researchers tested how the brains of the participants responded to seeing pictures of social interactions after they underwent a prolonged period of social isolation. In a subsequent session, the same people were asked to undergo food fasting and then underwent brain scans when looking at pictures of food. Results showed that the neural patterns were similar in the two situations with increased activity in the substantia nigra area within the midbrain.

“This area of the brain processes rewards and motivation. It consists primarily of dopamine neurons and increased activity corresponds to a feeling of craving something. So this area of the brain that controls essential homeostatic needs is activated when people feel lonely, suggesting that our need for social contact with others is potentially a very basic need similar to eating,” Tomova said.
 

Lower Gray Matter Volumes in Key Brain Areas

And another group from Germany has found that higher loneliness scores are negatively associated with specific brain regions responsible for memory, emotion regulation, and social processing.

Sandra Düzel, PhD, and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, both in Berlin, Germany, reported a study in which individuals who reported higher loneliness had smaller gray matter volumes in brain regions such as the left amygdala, anterior hippocampus, and cerebellum, regions which are crucial for both emotional regulation and higher-order cognitive processes, such as self-reflection and executive function.

Düzel believes that possible mechanisms behind the link between loneliness and brain volume differences could include stress-related damage, with prolonged loneliness associated with elevated levels of stress hormones, which can damage the hippocampus over time, and reduced cognitive and social stimulation, which may contribute to brain volume reductions in regions critical for memory and emotional processing.

“Loneliness is often characterized by reduced social and environmental diversity, leading to less engagement with novel experiences and potentially lower hippocampal-striatal connectivity.

Since novelty-seeking and environmental diversity are associated with positive emotional states, individuals experiencing loneliness might benefit from increased exposure to new environments which could stimulate the brain’s reward circuits, fostering positive affect and potentially mitigating the emotional burden of loneliness,” she said.
 

Is Social Prescribing the Answer?

So are there enough data now to act and attempt to develop interventions to reduce loneliness? Most of these researchers believe so.

“I think we have enough information to act on this now. There are a number of national academies consensus reports, which suggest that, while certainly there are still gaps in our evidence and more to be learned, there is sufficient evidence that a concerning portion of the population seems to lack connection, and that the consequences are serious enough that we need to do something about it,” said Holt-Lunstad.

Some countries have introduced social prescribing where doctors can prescribe a group activity or a regular visit or telephone conversation with a supportive person.

Subramanian pointed out that it’s easier to implement in countries with national health services and may be more difficult to embrace in the US healthcare system.

“We are not so encouraged from a financial perspective to think about preventive care in the US. We don’t have an easy way to recognize in any tangible way the downstream of such activities in terms of preventing future problems. That is something we need to work on,” she said.

Finley cautioned that to work well, social prescribing will require an understanding of each person’s individual situation.

“Some people may only receive benefit of interacting with others if they are also getting some sort of support to address the social and emotional concerns that are tagging along with loneliness. I’m not sure that just telling people to go join their local gardening club or whatever will be the correct answer for everyone.”

She pointed out that many people will have issues in their life that are making it hard for them to be social. These could be mobility or financial challenges, care responsibilities, or concerns about illnesses or life events. “We need to figure out what would have the most bang for the person’s buck, so to speak, as an intervention. That could mean connecting them to a group relevant to their individual situation.”
 

Opportunity to Connect Not Enough?

Tomova believes that training people in social skills may be a better option. “It appears that some people who are chronically lonely seem to struggle to make relationships with others. So just encouraging them to interact with others more will not necessarily help. We need to better understand the pathways involved and who are the people who become ill. We can then develop and target better interventions and teach people coping strategies for that situation.”

Scheele agreed. “While just giving people the opportunity to connect may work for some, others who are experiencing really chronic loneliness may not benefit very much from this unless their negative belief systems are addressed.” He suggested some sort of psychotherapy may be helpful in this situation.

But at least all seem to agree that healthcare providers need to be more aware of loneliness as a health risk factor, try to identify people at risk, and to think about how best to support them.

Holt-Lunstad noted that one of the recommendations in the US Surgeon General’s advisory was to increase the education, training, and resources on loneliness for healthcare providers.

“If we want this to be addressed, we need to give healthcare providers the time, resources, and training in order to do that, otherwise, we are adding one more thing to an already overburdened system. They need to understand how important it is, and how it might help them take care of the patient.”

“Our hope is that we can start to reverse some of the trends that we are seeing, both in terms of the prevalence rates of loneliness, but also that we could start seeing improvements in health and other kinds of outcomes,” she concluded.

Progress is being made in increasing awareness about the dangers of chronic loneliness. It’s now recognized as a serious health risk, but there are actionable steps that can help. Loneliness doesn’t have to be a permanent condition for anyone, said Scheele.

Holt-Lunstad served as an adviser for Foundation for Social Connection, Global Initiative on Loneliness and Connection, and Nextdoor Neighborhood Vitality Board and received research grants/income from Templeton Foundation, Eventbrite, Foundation for Social Connection, and Triple-S Foundation. Subramanian served as a speaker bureau for Acorda Pharma. The other researchers reported no disclosures.

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

In a world that is more connected than ever, a silent epidemic is taking its toll. Overall, one in three US adults report chronic loneliness — a condition so detrimental that it rivals smoking and obesity with respect to its negative effect on health and well-being. From anxiety and depression to life-threatening conditions like cardiovascular disease, stroke, and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, loneliness is more than an emotion — it’s a serious threat to both the brain and body.

In 2023, a US Surgeon General advisory raised the alarm about the national problem of loneliness and isolation, describing it as an epidemic.

“Given the significant health consequences of loneliness and isolation, we must prioritize building social connection in the same way we have prioritized other critical public health issues such as tobacco, obesity, and substance use disorders. Together, we can build a country that’s healthier, more resilient, less lonely, and more connected,” the report concluded.

But how, exactly, does chronic loneliness affect the physiology and function of the brain? What does the latest research reveal about the link between loneliness and neurologic and psychiatric illness, and what can clinicians do to address the issue?

This news organization spoke to multiple experts in the field to explore these issues.
 

A Major Risk Factor

Anna Finley, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at North Dakota State University, Fargo, explained that loneliness and social isolation are different entities. Social isolation is an objective measure of the number of people someone interacts with on a regular basis, whereas loneliness is a subjective feeling that occurs when close connections are lacking.

“These two things are not actually as related as you think they would be. People can feel lonely in a crowd or feel well connected with only a few friendships. It’s more about the quality of the connection and the quality of your perception of it. So someone could be in some very supportive relationships but still feel that there’s something missing,” she said in an interview.

So what do we know about how loneliness affects health? Evidence supporting the hypothesis that loneliness is an emerging risk factor for many diseases is steadily building.

Recently, the American Heart Association published a statement summarizing the evidence for a direct association between social isolation and loneliness and coronary heart disease and stroke mortality.

In addition, many studies have shown that individuals experiencing social isolation or loneliness have an increased risk for anxiety and depression, dementia, infectious disease, hospitalization, and all-cause death, even after adjusting for age and many other traditional risk factors.

One study revealed that eliminating loneliness has the potential to prevent nearly 20% of cases of depression in adults aged 50 years or older.

Indu Subramanian, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues conducted a study involving patients with Parkinson’s disease, which showed that the negative impact of loneliness on disease severity was as significant as the positive effects of 30 minutes of daily exercise.

“The importance of loneliness is under-recognized and undervalued, and it poses a major risk for health outcomes and quality of life,” said Subramanian.

Subramanian noted that loneliness is stigmatizing, causing people to feel unlikable and blame themselves, which prevents them from opening up to doctors or loved ones about their struggle. At the same time, healthcare providers may not think to ask about loneliness or know about potential interventions. She emphasized that much more work is needed to address this issue.
 

Early Mortality Risk

Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, is the author of two large meta-analyses that suggest loneliness, social isolation, or living alone are independent risk factors for early mortality, increasing this risk by about a third — the equivalent to the risk of smoking 15 cigarettes per day.

“We have quite robust evidence across a number of health outcomes implicating the harmful effects of loneliness and social isolation. While these are observational studies and show mainly associations, we do have evidence from longitudinal studies that show lacking social connection, whether that be loneliness or social isolation, predicts subsequent worse outcomes, and most of these studies have adjusted for alternative kinds of explanations, like age, initial health status, lifestyle factors,” Holt-Lunstad said.

There is some evidence to suggest that isolation is more predictive of physical health outcomes, whereas loneliness is more predictive of mental health outcomes. That said, both isolation and loneliness have significant effects on mental and physical health outcomes, she noted.

There is also the question of whether loneliness is causing poor health or whether people who are in poor health feel lonely because poor health can lead to social isolation.

Finley said there’s probably a bit of both going on, but longitudinal studies, where loneliness is measured at a fixed timepoint then health outcomes are reported a few years later, suggest that loneliness is contributing to these adverse outcomes.

She added that there is also some evidence in animal models to suggest that loneliness is a causal risk factor for adverse health outcomes. “But you can’t ask a mouse or rat how lonely they’re feeling. All you can do is house them individually — removing them from social connection. This isn’t necessarily the same thing as loneliness in humans.”

Finley is studying mechanisms in the brain that may be involved in mediating the adverse health consequences of loneliness.

“What I’ve been seeing in the data so far is that it tends to be the self-report of how lonely folks are feeling that has the associations with differences in the brain, as opposed to the number of social connections people have. It does seem to be the more subjective, emotional perception of loneliness that is important.”

In a review of potential mechanisms involved, she concluded that it is dysregulated emotions and altered perceptions of social interactions that has profound impacts on the brain, suggesting that people who are lonely may have a tendency to interpret social cues in a negative way, preventing them from forming productive positive relationships.
 

Lack of Trust

One researcher who has studied this phenomenon is Dirk Scheele, PhD, professor of social neuroscience at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany.

“We were interested to find out why people remained lonely,” he said in an interview. “Loneliness is an unpleasant experience, and there are so many opportunities for social contacts nowadays, it’s not really clear at first sight why people are chronically lonely.”

To examine this question, Scheele and his team conducted a study in which functional MRI was used to examine the brain in otherwise healthy individuals with high or low loneliness scores while they played a trust game.

They also simulated a positive social interaction between participants and researchers, in which they talked about plans for a fictitious lottery win, and about their hobbies and interests, during which mood was measured with questionnaires, and saliva samples were collected to measure hormone levels.

Results showed that the high-lonely individuals had reduced activation in the insula cortex during the trust decisions. “This area of the brain is involved in the processing of bodily signals, such as ‘gut feelings.’ So reduced activity here could be interpreted as fewer gut feelings on who can be trusted,” Scheele explained.

The high-lonely individuals also had reduced responsiveness to the positive social interaction with a lower release of oxytocin and a smaller elevation in mood compared with the control individuals.

Scheele pointed out that there is some evidence that oxytocin might increase trust, and there is reduced release of endogenous oxytocin in high loneliness.

“Our results are consistent with the idea that loneliness is associated with negative biases about other people. So if we expect negative things from other people — for instance, that they cannot be trusted — then that would hamper further social interactions and could lead to loneliness,” he added.
 

A Role for Oxytocin?

In another study, the same researchers tested short-term (five weekly sessions) group psychotherapy to reduce loneliness using established techniques to target these negative biases. They also investigated whether the effects of this group psychotherapy could be augmented by administering intranasal oxytocin (vs placebo) before the group psychotherapy sessions.

Results showed that the group psychotherapy intervention reduced trait loneliness (loneliness experienced over a prolonged period). The oxytocin did not show a significant effect on trait loneliness, but there was a suggestion that it may enhance the reduction in state loneliness (how someone is feeling at a specific time) brought about by the psychotherapy sessions.

“We found that bonding within the groups was experienced as more positive in the oxytocin treated groups. It is possible that a longer intervention would be helpful for longer-term results,” Scheele concluded. “It’s not going to be a quick fix for loneliness, but there may be a role for oxytocin as an adjunct to psychotherapy.”
 

A Basic Human Need

Another loneliness researcher, Livia Tomova, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at Cardiff University in Wales, has used social isolation to induce loneliness in young people and found that this intervention was linked to brain patterns similar to those associated with hunger.

“We know that the drive to eat food is a very basic human need. We know quite well how it is represented in the brain,” she explained.

The researchers tested how the brains of the participants responded to seeing pictures of social interactions after they underwent a prolonged period of social isolation. In a subsequent session, the same people were asked to undergo food fasting and then underwent brain scans when looking at pictures of food. Results showed that the neural patterns were similar in the two situations with increased activity in the substantia nigra area within the midbrain.

“This area of the brain processes rewards and motivation. It consists primarily of dopamine neurons and increased activity corresponds to a feeling of craving something. So this area of the brain that controls essential homeostatic needs is activated when people feel lonely, suggesting that our need for social contact with others is potentially a very basic need similar to eating,” Tomova said.
 

Lower Gray Matter Volumes in Key Brain Areas

And another group from Germany has found that higher loneliness scores are negatively associated with specific brain regions responsible for memory, emotion regulation, and social processing.

Sandra Düzel, PhD, and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, both in Berlin, Germany, reported a study in which individuals who reported higher loneliness had smaller gray matter volumes in brain regions such as the left amygdala, anterior hippocampus, and cerebellum, regions which are crucial for both emotional regulation and higher-order cognitive processes, such as self-reflection and executive function.

Düzel believes that possible mechanisms behind the link between loneliness and brain volume differences could include stress-related damage, with prolonged loneliness associated with elevated levels of stress hormones, which can damage the hippocampus over time, and reduced cognitive and social stimulation, which may contribute to brain volume reductions in regions critical for memory and emotional processing.

“Loneliness is often characterized by reduced social and environmental diversity, leading to less engagement with novel experiences and potentially lower hippocampal-striatal connectivity.

Since novelty-seeking and environmental diversity are associated with positive emotional states, individuals experiencing loneliness might benefit from increased exposure to new environments which could stimulate the brain’s reward circuits, fostering positive affect and potentially mitigating the emotional burden of loneliness,” she said.
 

Is Social Prescribing the Answer?

So are there enough data now to act and attempt to develop interventions to reduce loneliness? Most of these researchers believe so.

“I think we have enough information to act on this now. There are a number of national academies consensus reports, which suggest that, while certainly there are still gaps in our evidence and more to be learned, there is sufficient evidence that a concerning portion of the population seems to lack connection, and that the consequences are serious enough that we need to do something about it,” said Holt-Lunstad.

Some countries have introduced social prescribing where doctors can prescribe a group activity or a regular visit or telephone conversation with a supportive person.

Subramanian pointed out that it’s easier to implement in countries with national health services and may be more difficult to embrace in the US healthcare system.

“We are not so encouraged from a financial perspective to think about preventive care in the US. We don’t have an easy way to recognize in any tangible way the downstream of such activities in terms of preventing future problems. That is something we need to work on,” she said.

Finley cautioned that to work well, social prescribing will require an understanding of each person’s individual situation.

“Some people may only receive benefit of interacting with others if they are also getting some sort of support to address the social and emotional concerns that are tagging along with loneliness. I’m not sure that just telling people to go join their local gardening club or whatever will be the correct answer for everyone.”

She pointed out that many people will have issues in their life that are making it hard for them to be social. These could be mobility or financial challenges, care responsibilities, or concerns about illnesses or life events. “We need to figure out what would have the most bang for the person’s buck, so to speak, as an intervention. That could mean connecting them to a group relevant to their individual situation.”
 

Opportunity to Connect Not Enough?

Tomova believes that training people in social skills may be a better option. “It appears that some people who are chronically lonely seem to struggle to make relationships with others. So just encouraging them to interact with others more will not necessarily help. We need to better understand the pathways involved and who are the people who become ill. We can then develop and target better interventions and teach people coping strategies for that situation.”

Scheele agreed. “While just giving people the opportunity to connect may work for some, others who are experiencing really chronic loneliness may not benefit very much from this unless their negative belief systems are addressed.” He suggested some sort of psychotherapy may be helpful in this situation.

But at least all seem to agree that healthcare providers need to be more aware of loneliness as a health risk factor, try to identify people at risk, and to think about how best to support them.

Holt-Lunstad noted that one of the recommendations in the US Surgeon General’s advisory was to increase the education, training, and resources on loneliness for healthcare providers.

“If we want this to be addressed, we need to give healthcare providers the time, resources, and training in order to do that, otherwise, we are adding one more thing to an already overburdened system. They need to understand how important it is, and how it might help them take care of the patient.”

“Our hope is that we can start to reverse some of the trends that we are seeing, both in terms of the prevalence rates of loneliness, but also that we could start seeing improvements in health and other kinds of outcomes,” she concluded.

Progress is being made in increasing awareness about the dangers of chronic loneliness. It’s now recognized as a serious health risk, but there are actionable steps that can help. Loneliness doesn’t have to be a permanent condition for anyone, said Scheele.

Holt-Lunstad served as an adviser for Foundation for Social Connection, Global Initiative on Loneliness and Connection, and Nextdoor Neighborhood Vitality Board and received research grants/income from Templeton Foundation, Eventbrite, Foundation for Social Connection, and Triple-S Foundation. Subramanian served as a speaker bureau for Acorda Pharma. The other researchers reported no disclosures.

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