Opinion

Earlier in 2024 the American Headache Society issued a position statement that CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide) agents are a first-line option for migraine prevention.

No Shinola, Sherlock.

Any of us working frontline neurology have figured that out, including me. And I was, honestly, pretty skeptical of them when they hit the pharmacy shelves. But these days, to quote The Monkees (and Neil Diamond), “I’m a Believer.”

Unfortunately, things don’t quite work out that way. Just because a drug is clearly successful doesn’t make it practical to use first line. Most insurances won’t even let family doctors prescribe them, so they have to send patients to a neurologist (which I’m not complaining about).

Then me and my neuro-brethren have to jump through hoops because of their cost. One month of any of these drugs costs the same as a few years (or more) of generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Granted, I shouldn’t complain about that, either. If everyone with migraines was getting them it would drive up insurance premiums across the board — including mine.

So, after patients have tried and failed at least two to four other options (depending on their plan) I can usually get a CGRP covered. This involves filling out some forms online and submitting them ... then waiting.

Even if the drug is approved, and successful, that’s still not the end of the story. Depending on the plan I have to get them reauthorized anywhere from every 3 to 12 months. There’s also the chance that in December I’ll get a letter saying the drug won’t be covered starting January, and to try one of the recommended alternatives, like generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Having celebrities like Lady Gaga pushing them doesn’t help. The commercials never mention that getting the medication isn’t as easy as “ask your doctor.” Nor does it point out that Lady Gaga won’t have an issue with a CGRP agent’s price tag of $800-$1000 per month, while most of her fans need that money for rent and groceries.

The guidelines, in essence, are useful, but only apply to a perfect world where drug cost doesn’t matter. We aren’t in one. I’m not knocking the pharmaceutical companies — research and development take A LOT of money, and every drug that comes to market has to pay not only for itself, but for several others that failed. Innovation isn’t cheap.

That doesn’t make it any easier to explain to patients, who see ads, or news blurbs on Facebook, or whatever. I just wish the advertisements would have more transparency about how the pricing works.

After all, regardless of how good an automobile may be, don’t car ads show an MSRP?

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Earlier in 2024 the American Headache Society issued a position statement that CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide) agents are a first-line option for migraine prevention.

No Shinola, Sherlock.

Any of us working frontline neurology have figured that out, including me. And I was, honestly, pretty skeptical of them when they hit the pharmacy shelves. But these days, to quote The Monkees (and Neil Diamond), “I’m a Believer.”

Unfortunately, things don’t quite work out that way. Just because a drug is clearly successful doesn’t make it practical to use first line. Most insurances won’t even let family doctors prescribe them, so they have to send patients to a neurologist (which I’m not complaining about).

Then me and my neuro-brethren have to jump through hoops because of their cost. One month of any of these drugs costs the same as a few years (or more) of generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Granted, I shouldn’t complain about that, either. If everyone with migraines was getting them it would drive up insurance premiums across the board — including mine.

So, after patients have tried and failed at least two to four other options (depending on their plan) I can usually get a CGRP covered. This involves filling out some forms online and submitting them ... then waiting.

Even if the drug is approved, and successful, that’s still not the end of the story. Depending on the plan I have to get them reauthorized anywhere from every 3 to 12 months. There’s also the chance that in December I’ll get a letter saying the drug won’t be covered starting January, and to try one of the recommended alternatives, like generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Having celebrities like Lady Gaga pushing them doesn’t help. The commercials never mention that getting the medication isn’t as easy as “ask your doctor.” Nor does it point out that Lady Gaga won’t have an issue with a CGRP agent’s price tag of $800-$1000 per month, while most of her fans need that money for rent and groceries.

The guidelines, in essence, are useful, but only apply to a perfect world where drug cost doesn’t matter. We aren’t in one. I’m not knocking the pharmaceutical companies — research and development take A LOT of money, and every drug that comes to market has to pay not only for itself, but for several others that failed. Innovation isn’t cheap.

That doesn’t make it any easier to explain to patients, who see ads, or news blurbs on Facebook, or whatever. I just wish the advertisements would have more transparency about how the pricing works.

After all, regardless of how good an automobile may be, don’t car ads show an MSRP?

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Earlier in 2024 the American Headache Society issued a position statement that CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide) agents are a first-line option for migraine prevention.

No Shinola, Sherlock.

Any of us working frontline neurology have figured that out, including me. And I was, honestly, pretty skeptical of them when they hit the pharmacy shelves. But these days, to quote The Monkees (and Neil Diamond), “I’m a Believer.”

Unfortunately, things don’t quite work out that way. Just because a drug is clearly successful doesn’t make it practical to use first line. Most insurances won’t even let family doctors prescribe them, so they have to send patients to a neurologist (which I’m not complaining about).

Then me and my neuro-brethren have to jump through hoops because of their cost. One month of any of these drugs costs the same as a few years (or more) of generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Granted, I shouldn’t complain about that, either. If everyone with migraines was getting them it would drive up insurance premiums across the board — including mine.

So, after patients have tried and failed at least two to four other options (depending on their plan) I can usually get a CGRP covered. This involves filling out some forms online and submitting them ... then waiting.

Even if the drug is approved, and successful, that’s still not the end of the story. Depending on the plan I have to get them reauthorized anywhere from every 3 to 12 months. There’s also the chance that in December I’ll get a letter saying the drug won’t be covered starting January, and to try one of the recommended alternatives, like generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Having celebrities like Lady Gaga pushing them doesn’t help. The commercials never mention that getting the medication isn’t as easy as “ask your doctor.” Nor does it point out that Lady Gaga won’t have an issue with a CGRP agent’s price tag of $800-$1000 per month, while most of her fans need that money for rent and groceries.

The guidelines, in essence, are useful, but only apply to a perfect world where drug cost doesn’t matter. We aren’t in one. I’m not knocking the pharmaceutical companies — research and development take A LOT of money, and every drug that comes to market has to pay not only for itself, but for several others that failed. Innovation isn’t cheap.

That doesn’t make it any easier to explain to patients, who see ads, or news blurbs on Facebook, or whatever. I just wish the advertisements would have more transparency about how the pricing works.

After all, regardless of how good an automobile may be, don’t car ads show an MSRP?

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

Since gabapentin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of partial-onset seizures and postherpetic neuralgia, it has been used in many different ways, many off-label indications, and with several recent safety warnings.

Early Problems

After FDA approval in 1993 (for partial seizures), gabapentin was promoted by its maker (Park-Davis) for off-label indications, especially for pain. There was no FDA approval for that indication and the studies the company had done were deemed to have been manipulated in a subsequent lawsuit.¹ Gabapentin became the nonopioid go-to medication for treatment of pain despite underwhelming evidence.
 

Studies on Neuropathy

In the largest trial of gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Rauck and colleagues found no significant difference in pain relief between gabapentin and placebo.² A Cochrane review of gabapentin for neuropathic pain concluded that about 30%-40% of patients taking gabapentin for diabetic neuropathy achieved meaningful pain relief with gabapentin use, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6.6.³ The review also concluded that for postherpetic neuralgia (an FDA-approved indication) 78% of patients had moderate to substantial benefit with gabapentin (NNT 4.8 for moderate benefit).

Side Effects of Gabapentin

From the Cochrane review, the most common side effects were:  dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral edema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). The number needed to harm for gabapentin was 7.⁵ The two side effects listed here that are often overlooked that I want to highlight are peripheral edema and gait disturbance. I have seen these both fairly frequently over the years. A side effect not found in the Cochrane review was weight gain. Weight gain with gabapentin was reported in a meta-analysis of drugs that can cause weight gain.⁴

New Warnings

In December 2019, the FDA released a warning on the potential for serious respiratory problems with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with certain risk factors: opioid use or use of other drugs that depress the central nervous system, COPD, and other severe lung diseases.⁵ Rahman and colleagues found that compared with nonuse, gabapentinoid use was associated with increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.50).⁶

Off-Label Uses

Primary care professionals frequently use gabapentin for two off-label indications that are incorporated into practice guidelines. Ryan et al. studied gabapentin in patients with refractory, unexplained chronic cough.⁷ In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, gabapentin improved cough-specific quality of life compared with placebo (P = .004; NNT 3.58). Use of gabapentin for treatment of unexplained, refractory cough has been included in several chronic cough practice guidelines.^8,9

Gabapentin has been studied for the treatment of restless legs syndrome and has been recommended as an option to treat moderate to severe restless legs syndrome in the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Guidelines.¹⁰

Pearl of the Month:

Gabapentin is used widely for many different pain syndromes. The best evidence is for postherpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy. Be aware of the side effects and risks of use in patients with pulmonary disease and who are taking CNS-depressant medications.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Landefeld CS, Steinman MA. The Neurontin legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):103-6.

2. Rauck R et al. A randomized, controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain Pract. 2013;13(6):485-96.

3. Wiffen PJ et al. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD007938.

4. Domecq JP et al. Clinical review: Drugs commonly associated with weight change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb;100(2):363-70.

5. 12-19-2019 FDA Drug Safety Communication. FDA warns about serious breathing problems with seizure and nerve pain medicines gabapentin (Neurontin, Gralise, Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica, Lyrica CR).

6. Rahman AA et al. Gabapentinoids and risk for severe exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Feb;177(2):144-54.

7. Ryan NM et al. Gabapentin for refractory chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380(9853):1583-9.

8. Gibson P et al. Treatment of unexplained chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):27-44.

9. De Vincentis A et al. Chronic cough in adults: recommendations from an Italian intersociety consensus. Aging Clin Exp Res 2022;34:1529.

10. Aurora RN et al. The treatment of restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movement disorder in adults — an update for 2012: Practice parameters with an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analyses: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline. Sleep 2012;35:1039.

Since gabapentin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of partial-onset seizures and postherpetic neuralgia, it has been used in many different ways, many off-label indications, and with several recent safety warnings.

Early Problems

After FDA approval in 1993 (for partial seizures), gabapentin was promoted by its maker (Park-Davis) for off-label indications, especially for pain. There was no FDA approval for that indication and the studies the company had done were deemed to have been manipulated in a subsequent lawsuit.¹ Gabapentin became the nonopioid go-to medication for treatment of pain despite underwhelming evidence.
 

Studies on Neuropathy

In the largest trial of gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Rauck and colleagues found no significant difference in pain relief between gabapentin and placebo.² A Cochrane review of gabapentin for neuropathic pain concluded that about 30%-40% of patients taking gabapentin for diabetic neuropathy achieved meaningful pain relief with gabapentin use, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6.6.³ The review also concluded that for postherpetic neuralgia (an FDA-approved indication) 78% of patients had moderate to substantial benefit with gabapentin (NNT 4.8 for moderate benefit).

Side Effects of Gabapentin

From the Cochrane review, the most common side effects were:  dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral edema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). The number needed to harm for gabapentin was 7.⁵ The two side effects listed here that are often overlooked that I want to highlight are peripheral edema and gait disturbance. I have seen these both fairly frequently over the years. A side effect not found in the Cochrane review was weight gain. Weight gain with gabapentin was reported in a meta-analysis of drugs that can cause weight gain.⁴

New Warnings

In December 2019, the FDA released a warning on the potential for serious respiratory problems with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with certain risk factors: opioid use or use of other drugs that depress the central nervous system, COPD, and other severe lung diseases.⁵ Rahman and colleagues found that compared with nonuse, gabapentinoid use was associated with increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.50).⁶

Off-Label Uses

Primary care professionals frequently use gabapentin for two off-label indications that are incorporated into practice guidelines. Ryan et al. studied gabapentin in patients with refractory, unexplained chronic cough.⁷ In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, gabapentin improved cough-specific quality of life compared with placebo (P = .004; NNT 3.58). Use of gabapentin for treatment of unexplained, refractory cough has been included in several chronic cough practice guidelines.^8,9

Gabapentin has been studied for the treatment of restless legs syndrome and has been recommended as an option to treat moderate to severe restless legs syndrome in the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Guidelines.¹⁰

Pearl of the Month:

Gabapentin is used widely for many different pain syndromes. The best evidence is for postherpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy. Be aware of the side effects and risks of use in patients with pulmonary disease and who are taking CNS-depressant medications.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Landefeld CS, Steinman MA. The Neurontin legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):103-6.

2. Rauck R et al. A randomized, controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain Pract. 2013;13(6):485-96.

3. Wiffen PJ et al. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD007938.

4. Domecq JP et al. Clinical review: Drugs commonly associated with weight change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb;100(2):363-70.

5. 12-19-2019 FDA Drug Safety Communication. FDA warns about serious breathing problems with seizure and nerve pain medicines gabapentin (Neurontin, Gralise, Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica, Lyrica CR).

6. Rahman AA et al. Gabapentinoids and risk for severe exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Feb;177(2):144-54.

7. Ryan NM et al. Gabapentin for refractory chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380(9853):1583-9.

8. Gibson P et al. Treatment of unexplained chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):27-44.

9. De Vincentis A et al. Chronic cough in adults: recommendations from an Italian intersociety consensus. Aging Clin Exp Res 2022;34:1529.

10. Aurora RN et al. The treatment of restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movement disorder in adults — an update for 2012: Practice parameters with an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analyses: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline. Sleep 2012;35:1039.

Since gabapentin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of partial-onset seizures and postherpetic neuralgia, it has been used in many different ways, many off-label indications, and with several recent safety warnings.

Early Problems

After FDA approval in 1993 (for partial seizures), gabapentin was promoted by its maker (Park-Davis) for off-label indications, especially for pain. There was no FDA approval for that indication and the studies the company had done were deemed to have been manipulated in a subsequent lawsuit.¹ Gabapentin became the nonopioid go-to medication for treatment of pain despite underwhelming evidence.
 

Studies on Neuropathy

In the largest trial of gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Rauck and colleagues found no significant difference in pain relief between gabapentin and placebo.² A Cochrane review of gabapentin for neuropathic pain concluded that about 30%-40% of patients taking gabapentin for diabetic neuropathy achieved meaningful pain relief with gabapentin use, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6.6.³ The review also concluded that for postherpetic neuralgia (an FDA-approved indication) 78% of patients had moderate to substantial benefit with gabapentin (NNT 4.8 for moderate benefit).

Side Effects of Gabapentin

From the Cochrane review, the most common side effects were:  dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral edema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). The number needed to harm for gabapentin was 7.⁵ The two side effects listed here that are often overlooked that I want to highlight are peripheral edema and gait disturbance. I have seen these both fairly frequently over the years. A side effect not found in the Cochrane review was weight gain. Weight gain with gabapentin was reported in a meta-analysis of drugs that can cause weight gain.⁴

New Warnings

In December 2019, the FDA released a warning on the potential for serious respiratory problems with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with certain risk factors: opioid use or use of other drugs that depress the central nervous system, COPD, and other severe lung diseases.⁵ Rahman and colleagues found that compared with nonuse, gabapentinoid use was associated with increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.50).⁶

Off-Label Uses

Primary care professionals frequently use gabapentin for two off-label indications that are incorporated into practice guidelines. Ryan et al. studied gabapentin in patients with refractory, unexplained chronic cough.⁷ In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, gabapentin improved cough-specific quality of life compared with placebo (P = .004; NNT 3.58). Use of gabapentin for treatment of unexplained, refractory cough has been included in several chronic cough practice guidelines.^8,9

Gabapentin has been studied for the treatment of restless legs syndrome and has been recommended as an option to treat moderate to severe restless legs syndrome in the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Guidelines.¹⁰

Pearl of the Month:

Gabapentin is used widely for many different pain syndromes. The best evidence is for postherpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy. Be aware of the side effects and risks of use in patients with pulmonary disease and who are taking CNS-depressant medications.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Landefeld CS, Steinman MA. The Neurontin legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):103-6.

2. Rauck R et al. A randomized, controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain Pract. 2013;13(6):485-96.

3. Wiffen PJ et al. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD007938.

4. Domecq JP et al. Clinical review: Drugs commonly associated with weight change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb;100(2):363-70.

5. 12-19-2019 FDA Drug Safety Communication. FDA warns about serious breathing problems with seizure and nerve pain medicines gabapentin (Neurontin, Gralise, Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica, Lyrica CR).

6. Rahman AA et al. Gabapentinoids and risk for severe exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Feb;177(2):144-54.

7. Ryan NM et al. Gabapentin for refractory chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380(9853):1583-9.

8. Gibson P et al. Treatment of unexplained chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):27-44.

9. De Vincentis A et al. Chronic cough in adults: recommendations from an Italian intersociety consensus. Aging Clin Exp Res 2022;34:1529.

10. Aurora RN et al. The treatment of restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movement disorder in adults — an update for 2012: Practice parameters with an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analyses: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline. Sleep 2012;35:1039.

“Why, I guess you can,” Ma said doubtfully. She did not like to see women working in the fields. Ma and her girls were … above doing men’s work. — Laura Ingalls Wilder

Sometimes a dad has to feed his little ones. I take pride in making my mac and cheese from scratch. Unlike those modern out-of-the-box dads, I grate fresh Parmesan and cheddar myself. Authentic, but I’m no match for the “Trad Wives.” For some, like Hannah Neelman known as @BallarinaFarms, mac and cheese takes days to prepare. She first has to milk the cows, boil the milk for cheese, gather eggs, and make pasta from home-milled flour. Instagram and TikTok are buzzing with tradwives like her. Tradwives, short for traditional wives, post and promote conventional values in gorgeous cottagecore images. Sometimes in prairie dresses, often cooking with Le Creuset pans on AGA ranges, they are proud to serve their husband and brood who wait patiently sitting at their (19th-century farmhouse) tables.

Somehow, this romanticizing of women in old-fashioned homemaking roles, cooking, cleaning, and caring for children is trending in 2024. There is a spectrum of viewpoints but most labeled as tradwives glorify women who choose to feed families rather than build careers. Offstage are their husbands who implicitly benefit from their wives’ choices and capabilities.

It’s no coincidence that this hot tradwife trend is both controversial and popular — nothing feeds the algorithm like drama and dispute. At the extreme of tradwife content are orthodox religious or alt-right posts advising women to be servants to their husbands and to put family as their only priority. Watch enough of this content and you’ll likely find the algorithm dripping controversial anti-vax and conspiracy content in your feed. The irresistible combination of bucolic images and rage bait has led to tradwife content being viewed hundreds of millions of times. Audience reactions of love or hate are visceral. But pitting career women against tradwives is a trap. Despite provocative “feminist women hate god and family” or “tradwives promote slavery” posts, most purveyors of this content seem to enjoy their roles and, if anything, are only looking for likes and paid promotions.

Women in medicine whom I spoke with didn’t seem bothered, or surprised, by the tradwife trend. Who doesn’t love idyllic scenes of family and homesteads? The trouble is the expectation that women be both. Competent doctor by day and wild blueberry scones by day as well. FIGS and frilly dresses. Rhomboid flaps and darned socks (though the stitch might be the same). This is why the tradwife trend showcases the most difficult, exacting, and time consuming of household chores — it’s physiologically impossible to see patients 50 hours a week and churn your own butter. The movement is trying to say it’s impossible to do both, so just choose one. As a former Juilliard-trained ballerina, Ms. Neelman was certainly accustomed to performing at the highest level. A generous interpretation of her work is that she cannot be it all and so choosing to be a homemaker is freeing even if perhaps not her life’s ambition. Whether her life is enjoyable or forced drudgery is only hers to know. It seems the contented homemaker might offer a different kind of empowerment — one that centers around domesticity and nurturing. A rejection of perceived overreach of feminism.

Yet, some of the most competent, generous, and assiduous physicians in our department are moms and wives. They somehow manage to run the home operations, coordinate kids’ schedules, pack lunches (including their husbands’) and make homemade angel food cake with fresh whipped cream for dessert (it was delicious). I am in awe of their prodigious productivity and I realize that not all women can be like them nor all families like theirs.

Yet, I wonder how this trend might resonate — or clash — with the lives of the women in medicine more generally. The tradwife movement seems to offer a stark choice to the professional lives of female doctors, who find themselves at the intersection of high-stakes careers and the relentless demands of home. It raises questions about the pressures we place on ourselves and how we define success and fulfillment. The tradwife movement also reflects broader societal tensions — between tradition and progress, individualism and community, modernity and nostalgia. It invites us to reflect on our values and the choices we make, both in our personal lives and as a society.

Kaiser Permanente

We are fortunate that in 2024 so many women dedicate themselves to medicine. Having more women join medicine has improved the quality of care and the experience for our patients. In addition to the friction of inequalities such as bias, discrimination, and even assault for women in medicine, there is also the burden of unrealistic expectations that they can do it all. I don’t criticize tradwives for the choices they make but am ever more grateful for the women who have also added medicine as a priority.

As for assisting and accommodating women in medicine, we have come a way but can do more. At the least, rejecting the view that homemaking is women’s work would help. Often unnoticed is the immense volume of work that gets done at home by women. Men sharing more of this work-after-work can enable women to spend more time in their careers and not feel guilty that the homestead is suffering. Yes, doing the plant operations like fixing a leaky faucet is useful, but so would be getting the kids dressed, scheduling their volleyball, or prepping a lovely lunch for them.

Whilst it’s impossible for women in medicine to lead Instagrammable tradwife lives, we can get closer to it if we do our best to share the work. And I understand there is nothing sexier than a man scrambling eggs in an apron. Get ready, TikTok.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“Why, I guess you can,” Ma said doubtfully. She did not like to see women working in the fields. Ma and her girls were … above doing men’s work. — Laura Ingalls Wilder

Sometimes a dad has to feed his little ones. I take pride in making my mac and cheese from scratch. Unlike those modern out-of-the-box dads, I grate fresh Parmesan and cheddar myself. Authentic, but I’m no match for the “Trad Wives.” For some, like Hannah Neelman known as @BallarinaFarms, mac and cheese takes days to prepare. She first has to milk the cows, boil the milk for cheese, gather eggs, and make pasta from home-milled flour. Instagram and TikTok are buzzing with tradwives like her. Tradwives, short for traditional wives, post and promote conventional values in gorgeous cottagecore images. Sometimes in prairie dresses, often cooking with Le Creuset pans on AGA ranges, they are proud to serve their husband and brood who wait patiently sitting at their (19th-century farmhouse) tables.

Somehow, this romanticizing of women in old-fashioned homemaking roles, cooking, cleaning, and caring for children is trending in 2024. There is a spectrum of viewpoints but most labeled as tradwives glorify women who choose to feed families rather than build careers. Offstage are their husbands who implicitly benefit from their wives’ choices and capabilities.

It’s no coincidence that this hot tradwife trend is both controversial and popular — nothing feeds the algorithm like drama and dispute. At the extreme of tradwife content are orthodox religious or alt-right posts advising women to be servants to their husbands and to put family as their only priority. Watch enough of this content and you’ll likely find the algorithm dripping controversial anti-vax and conspiracy content in your feed. The irresistible combination of bucolic images and rage bait has led to tradwife content being viewed hundreds of millions of times. Audience reactions of love or hate are visceral. But pitting career women against tradwives is a trap. Despite provocative “feminist women hate god and family” or “tradwives promote slavery” posts, most purveyors of this content seem to enjoy their roles and, if anything, are only looking for likes and paid promotions.

Women in medicine whom I spoke with didn’t seem bothered, or surprised, by the tradwife trend. Who doesn’t love idyllic scenes of family and homesteads? The trouble is the expectation that women be both. Competent doctor by day and wild blueberry scones by day as well. FIGS and frilly dresses. Rhomboid flaps and darned socks (though the stitch might be the same). This is why the tradwife trend showcases the most difficult, exacting, and time consuming of household chores — it’s physiologically impossible to see patients 50 hours a week and churn your own butter. The movement is trying to say it’s impossible to do both, so just choose one. As a former Juilliard-trained ballerina, Ms. Neelman was certainly accustomed to performing at the highest level. A generous interpretation of her work is that she cannot be it all and so choosing to be a homemaker is freeing even if perhaps not her life’s ambition. Whether her life is enjoyable or forced drudgery is only hers to know. It seems the contented homemaker might offer a different kind of empowerment — one that centers around domesticity and nurturing. A rejection of perceived overreach of feminism.

Yet, some of the most competent, generous, and assiduous physicians in our department are moms and wives. They somehow manage to run the home operations, coordinate kids’ schedules, pack lunches (including their husbands’) and make homemade angel food cake with fresh whipped cream for dessert (it was delicious). I am in awe of their prodigious productivity and I realize that not all women can be like them nor all families like theirs.

Yet, I wonder how this trend might resonate — or clash — with the lives of the women in medicine more generally. The tradwife movement seems to offer a stark choice to the professional lives of female doctors, who find themselves at the intersection of high-stakes careers and the relentless demands of home. It raises questions about the pressures we place on ourselves and how we define success and fulfillment. The tradwife movement also reflects broader societal tensions — between tradition and progress, individualism and community, modernity and nostalgia. It invites us to reflect on our values and the choices we make, both in our personal lives and as a society.

Kaiser Permanente

We are fortunate that in 2024 so many women dedicate themselves to medicine. Having more women join medicine has improved the quality of care and the experience for our patients. In addition to the friction of inequalities such as bias, discrimination, and even assault for women in medicine, there is also the burden of unrealistic expectations that they can do it all. I don’t criticize tradwives for the choices they make but am ever more grateful for the women who have also added medicine as a priority.

As for assisting and accommodating women in medicine, we have come a way but can do more. At the least, rejecting the view that homemaking is women’s work would help. Often unnoticed is the immense volume of work that gets done at home by women. Men sharing more of this work-after-work can enable women to spend more time in their careers and not feel guilty that the homestead is suffering. Yes, doing the plant operations like fixing a leaky faucet is useful, but so would be getting the kids dressed, scheduling their volleyball, or prepping a lovely lunch for them.

Whilst it’s impossible for women in medicine to lead Instagrammable tradwife lives, we can get closer to it if we do our best to share the work. And I understand there is nothing sexier than a man scrambling eggs in an apron. Get ready, TikTok.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“Why, I guess you can,” Ma said doubtfully. She did not like to see women working in the fields. Ma and her girls were … above doing men’s work. — Laura Ingalls Wilder

Sometimes a dad has to feed his little ones. I take pride in making my mac and cheese from scratch. Unlike those modern out-of-the-box dads, I grate fresh Parmesan and cheddar myself. Authentic, but I’m no match for the “Trad Wives.” For some, like Hannah Neelman known as @BallarinaFarms, mac and cheese takes days to prepare. She first has to milk the cows, boil the milk for cheese, gather eggs, and make pasta from home-milled flour. Instagram and TikTok are buzzing with tradwives like her. Tradwives, short for traditional wives, post and promote conventional values in gorgeous cottagecore images. Sometimes in prairie dresses, often cooking with Le Creuset pans on AGA ranges, they are proud to serve their husband and brood who wait patiently sitting at their (19th-century farmhouse) tables.

Somehow, this romanticizing of women in old-fashioned homemaking roles, cooking, cleaning, and caring for children is trending in 2024. There is a spectrum of viewpoints but most labeled as tradwives glorify women who choose to feed families rather than build careers. Offstage are their husbands who implicitly benefit from their wives’ choices and capabilities.

It’s no coincidence that this hot tradwife trend is both controversial and popular — nothing feeds the algorithm like drama and dispute. At the extreme of tradwife content are orthodox religious or alt-right posts advising women to be servants to their husbands and to put family as their only priority. Watch enough of this content and you’ll likely find the algorithm dripping controversial anti-vax and conspiracy content in your feed. The irresistible combination of bucolic images and rage bait has led to tradwife content being viewed hundreds of millions of times. Audience reactions of love or hate are visceral. But pitting career women against tradwives is a trap. Despite provocative “feminist women hate god and family” or “tradwives promote slavery” posts, most purveyors of this content seem to enjoy their roles and, if anything, are only looking for likes and paid promotions.

Women in medicine whom I spoke with didn’t seem bothered, or surprised, by the tradwife trend. Who doesn’t love idyllic scenes of family and homesteads? The trouble is the expectation that women be both. Competent doctor by day and wild blueberry scones by day as well. FIGS and frilly dresses. Rhomboid flaps and darned socks (though the stitch might be the same). This is why the tradwife trend showcases the most difficult, exacting, and time consuming of household chores — it’s physiologically impossible to see patients 50 hours a week and churn your own butter. The movement is trying to say it’s impossible to do both, so just choose one. As a former Juilliard-trained ballerina, Ms. Neelman was certainly accustomed to performing at the highest level. A generous interpretation of her work is that she cannot be it all and so choosing to be a homemaker is freeing even if perhaps not her life’s ambition. Whether her life is enjoyable or forced drudgery is only hers to know. It seems the contented homemaker might offer a different kind of empowerment — one that centers around domesticity and nurturing. A rejection of perceived overreach of feminism.

Yet, some of the most competent, generous, and assiduous physicians in our department are moms and wives. They somehow manage to run the home operations, coordinate kids’ schedules, pack lunches (including their husbands’) and make homemade angel food cake with fresh whipped cream for dessert (it was delicious). I am in awe of their prodigious productivity and I realize that not all women can be like them nor all families like theirs.

Yet, I wonder how this trend might resonate — or clash — with the lives of the women in medicine more generally. The tradwife movement seems to offer a stark choice to the professional lives of female doctors, who find themselves at the intersection of high-stakes careers and the relentless demands of home. It raises questions about the pressures we place on ourselves and how we define success and fulfillment. The tradwife movement also reflects broader societal tensions — between tradition and progress, individualism and community, modernity and nostalgia. It invites us to reflect on our values and the choices we make, both in our personal lives and as a society.

Kaiser Permanente

We are fortunate that in 2024 so many women dedicate themselves to medicine. Having more women join medicine has improved the quality of care and the experience for our patients. In addition to the friction of inequalities such as bias, discrimination, and even assault for women in medicine, there is also the burden of unrealistic expectations that they can do it all. I don’t criticize tradwives for the choices they make but am ever more grateful for the women who have also added medicine as a priority.

As for assisting and accommodating women in medicine, we have come a way but can do more. At the least, rejecting the view that homemaking is women’s work would help. Often unnoticed is the immense volume of work that gets done at home by women. Men sharing more of this work-after-work can enable women to spend more time in their careers and not feel guilty that the homestead is suffering. Yes, doing the plant operations like fixing a leaky faucet is useful, but so would be getting the kids dressed, scheduling their volleyball, or prepping a lovely lunch for them.

Whilst it’s impossible for women in medicine to lead Instagrammable tradwife lives, we can get closer to it if we do our best to share the work. And I understand there is nothing sexier than a man scrambling eggs in an apron. Get ready, TikTok.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome back to Medscape at ADA 2024, where Dr. James Kim, primary care physician from Calgary, Alberta, will be joining me in deciphering the key highlights at the ADA conference and bringing our own clinical twist into what the relevance would be for people like you and I to take back to our clinics.

Welcome back, Dr. Kim. 

James Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be back. 

Dr. Jain: This was a diabetes conference, so obviously we are very pancreas focused. At this conference, we went outside our general area of territory, going outside of the pancreas and delving into other organ states. What I found fascinating were some data regarding the effects of incretin therapy on the lung, and in particular, some of the restrictive lung disorders.

Dr. Kim, you attended these sessions as well. Can you tell us a little bit more about the results that were discussed? 

Dr. Kim: This is an interesting field. The moderator of the session went up and said that there has been no time in any previous ADA sessions where the lung issue was actually discussed. This was the first time ever.

They had some of the world leaders in this field, so it was really awesome to see them. Just to paint a picture of these obese asthmatic patients, they are challenging cases because, as you know, the main therapy for any asthmatic patient is inhaled corticosteroid.

Patients who are obese have quite a bit of a steroid resistance. Therefore, they end up being on many medications that sometimes are off label, and many end up on biologics as well. Therefore, the respiratory world has been seeking therapies for these obese asthmatic patients who are likely to be steroid resistant because these people are also likely to end up on an oral steroid as well.

Dr. Jain, you know the effect of the steroids much better than I do, and it’s like a laundry list. We really don’t want our patients to be on oral steroids. 

In the past few years, GLP-1 has been studied quite extensively in the lung, especially in the world of asthma, and also in COPD. What’s really fascinating is that the GLP-1 receptors have been found to be quite abundant in the airway. Some studies show that the highest concentration of GLP-1 lies in the airway, whereas some studies have said that it’s the third most common area to find the GLP-1. 

It is not a surprise that GLP-1 is being studied in managing the airway, especially airway inflammation in asthma and COPD patients. The preliminary data have been quite encouraging. They also discussed that there are new medications coming out that seem to be incretin based, so we’ll wait to see what those studies show.

There are two current phase 3 trials being held at the moment. One is using semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous and another one is using metformin to reduce the airway inflammation in these asthmatic patients and also in some COPD patients. We’ll look forward to these results.

Dr. Jain: That’s really important to note because we see that there is a high density of these receptors in the airways, and hitherto we had no idea about the overall effect. Now, we’re looking at, as you mentioned, individuals with obesity who have asthma, so there are both the restrictive and obstructive components in the lung coming into play here.

From an endocrinology perspective, I’m thinking that this could be multiple effects of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, where on one hand you’re managing the obesity and you’re working along that line, and on the other hand, it could have local anti-inflammatory effects in the lung. Hence, there could be potential improvement in the overall pulmonary function of these individuals. 

Dr. Kim: We are seeing this in primary care. Ever since I found out this information, I have started numerous patients, who are obese, asthmatic patients who do not have diabetes, on GLP-1 therapies, and their pulmonary function tests have improved significantly.

As a matter of fact, one of my personal friends is a severe asthmatic patient. She ends up being on oral steroids about three times a year. There was even one day when I saw her in one of my classes and she was dyspneic. She was short of breath. 

I introduced her to one of my colleagues who’s a respirologist and very much into the impact of the incretins and asthma, and she was started on a GLP-1 receptor agonist. She lost about 30 pounds of weight, but now she is labeled as a mild asthmatic. Her pulmonary function test is completely normal. She hasn’t touched an oral steroid for a couple of years now.

That is a huge success story and I’m seeing that even in my own clinic as well. It’s a huge win for the respiratory world.

Dr. Jain: I think from an endocrinology perspective as well, if we are initiating GLP-1 receptor agonists or medications in that class, where we use it for management of obesity, sooner or later we do hit a stage where people will plateau with their weight loss. They won’t have any additional weight loss.

We tell individuals at that time that the fact that they’re able to maintain the weight loss still means that the medication is working from the obesity perspective. For individuals who also have asthma, it would be a good point to tell them that it could still have potential effects on reducing inflammation ongoing. Hence, even though they may not be losing any additional weight, it would still be helpful to continue on these medications from a pulmonary perspective. 

Dr. Kim: Right now these pleiotropic effects of GLP-1 agents are absolutely mind-blowing. I mentioned in one of my respiratory presentations to a bunch of respirologists that diabetes is taking over the world, including the respiratory world. Well, you can imagine what their faces were like. However, they were quite impressed at that, and they were very excited with what these two phase 3 trials will show. 

Dr. Jain: I think, based on the ADA 2024 conference, GLP-1 receptor agonists continue to be the gift that keeps giving. We have the effects on diabetes, obesity, kidney function, liver protection, lungs, and Alzheimer’s. We saw some sessions about potential use in people with alcohol misuse disorder or gambling problems. Clearly, there’s a large amount of research that›s being done with these agents. 

Perhaps when you and I talk about ADA 2025, we might be able to talk about some more pleiotropic benefits outside the pancreas. Until then, please do check out our other videos from ADA 2024. Thanks for joining us again, Dr. Kim.

Dr. Kim: Thank you very much for having me.
 

Dr. Jain, clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, and endocrinologist, TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has disclosed ties with Abbott, Acerus, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bausch Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Care to Know, CCRN, Connected in Motion, CPD Network, Dexcom, Diabetes Canada, Eli Lilly, GSK, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Master Clinician Alliance, MDBriefcase, Merck, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Partners in Progressive Medical Education, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Timed Right, WebMD, Gilead Sciences, Insulet, PocketPills, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Kim, clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, has disclosed ties with Abbott, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Embecta, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Linpharma, Novo Nordisk, Miravo, Otsuka, Pfizer, Teva, Takeda, and Sanofi, and Partners in Progressive Medical Education.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome back to Medscape at ADA 2024, where Dr. James Kim, primary care physician from Calgary, Alberta, will be joining me in deciphering the key highlights at the ADA conference and bringing our own clinical twist into what the relevance would be for people like you and I to take back to our clinics.

Welcome back, Dr. Kim. 

James Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be back. 

Dr. Jain: This was a diabetes conference, so obviously we are very pancreas focused. At this conference, we went outside our general area of territory, going outside of the pancreas and delving into other organ states. What I found fascinating were some data regarding the effects of incretin therapy on the lung, and in particular, some of the restrictive lung disorders.

Dr. Kim, you attended these sessions as well. Can you tell us a little bit more about the results that were discussed? 

Dr. Kim: This is an interesting field. The moderator of the session went up and said that there has been no time in any previous ADA sessions where the lung issue was actually discussed. This was the first time ever.

They had some of the world leaders in this field, so it was really awesome to see them. Just to paint a picture of these obese asthmatic patients, they are challenging cases because, as you know, the main therapy for any asthmatic patient is inhaled corticosteroid.

Patients who are obese have quite a bit of a steroid resistance. Therefore, they end up being on many medications that sometimes are off label, and many end up on biologics as well. Therefore, the respiratory world has been seeking therapies for these obese asthmatic patients who are likely to be steroid resistant because these people are also likely to end up on an oral steroid as well.

Dr. Jain, you know the effect of the steroids much better than I do, and it’s like a laundry list. We really don’t want our patients to be on oral steroids. 

In the past few years, GLP-1 has been studied quite extensively in the lung, especially in the world of asthma, and also in COPD. What’s really fascinating is that the GLP-1 receptors have been found to be quite abundant in the airway. Some studies show that the highest concentration of GLP-1 lies in the airway, whereas some studies have said that it’s the third most common area to find the GLP-1. 

It is not a surprise that GLP-1 is being studied in managing the airway, especially airway inflammation in asthma and COPD patients. The preliminary data have been quite encouraging. They also discussed that there are new medications coming out that seem to be incretin based, so we’ll wait to see what those studies show.

There are two current phase 3 trials being held at the moment. One is using semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous and another one is using metformin to reduce the airway inflammation in these asthmatic patients and also in some COPD patients. We’ll look forward to these results.

Dr. Jain: That’s really important to note because we see that there is a high density of these receptors in the airways, and hitherto we had no idea about the overall effect. Now, we’re looking at, as you mentioned, individuals with obesity who have asthma, so there are both the restrictive and obstructive components in the lung coming into play here.

From an endocrinology perspective, I’m thinking that this could be multiple effects of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, where on one hand you’re managing the obesity and you’re working along that line, and on the other hand, it could have local anti-inflammatory effects in the lung. Hence, there could be potential improvement in the overall pulmonary function of these individuals. 

Dr. Kim: We are seeing this in primary care. Ever since I found out this information, I have started numerous patients, who are obese, asthmatic patients who do not have diabetes, on GLP-1 therapies, and their pulmonary function tests have improved significantly.

As a matter of fact, one of my personal friends is a severe asthmatic patient. She ends up being on oral steroids about three times a year. There was even one day when I saw her in one of my classes and she was dyspneic. She was short of breath. 

I introduced her to one of my colleagues who’s a respirologist and very much into the impact of the incretins and asthma, and she was started on a GLP-1 receptor agonist. She lost about 30 pounds of weight, but now she is labeled as a mild asthmatic. Her pulmonary function test is completely normal. She hasn’t touched an oral steroid for a couple of years now.

That is a huge success story and I’m seeing that even in my own clinic as well. It’s a huge win for the respiratory world.

Dr. Jain: I think from an endocrinology perspective as well, if we are initiating GLP-1 receptor agonists or medications in that class, where we use it for management of obesity, sooner or later we do hit a stage where people will plateau with their weight loss. They won’t have any additional weight loss.

We tell individuals at that time that the fact that they’re able to maintain the weight loss still means that the medication is working from the obesity perspective. For individuals who also have asthma, it would be a good point to tell them that it could still have potential effects on reducing inflammation ongoing. Hence, even though they may not be losing any additional weight, it would still be helpful to continue on these medications from a pulmonary perspective. 

Dr. Kim: Right now these pleiotropic effects of GLP-1 agents are absolutely mind-blowing. I mentioned in one of my respiratory presentations to a bunch of respirologists that diabetes is taking over the world, including the respiratory world. Well, you can imagine what their faces were like. However, they were quite impressed at that, and they were very excited with what these two phase 3 trials will show. 

Dr. Jain: I think, based on the ADA 2024 conference, GLP-1 receptor agonists continue to be the gift that keeps giving. We have the effects on diabetes, obesity, kidney function, liver protection, lungs, and Alzheimer’s. We saw some sessions about potential use in people with alcohol misuse disorder or gambling problems. Clearly, there’s a large amount of research that›s being done with these agents. 

Perhaps when you and I talk about ADA 2025, we might be able to talk about some more pleiotropic benefits outside the pancreas. Until then, please do check out our other videos from ADA 2024. Thanks for joining us again, Dr. Kim.

Dr. Kim: Thank you very much for having me.
 

Dr. Jain, clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, and endocrinologist, TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has disclosed ties with Abbott, Acerus, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bausch Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Care to Know, CCRN, Connected in Motion, CPD Network, Dexcom, Diabetes Canada, Eli Lilly, GSK, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Master Clinician Alliance, MDBriefcase, Merck, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Partners in Progressive Medical Education, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Timed Right, WebMD, Gilead Sciences, Insulet, PocketPills, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Kim, clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, has disclosed ties with Abbott, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Embecta, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Linpharma, Novo Nordisk, Miravo, Otsuka, Pfizer, Teva, Takeda, and Sanofi, and Partners in Progressive Medical Education.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome back to Medscape at ADA 2024, where Dr. James Kim, primary care physician from Calgary, Alberta, will be joining me in deciphering the key highlights at the ADA conference and bringing our own clinical twist into what the relevance would be for people like you and I to take back to our clinics.

Welcome back, Dr. Kim. 

James Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be back. 

Dr. Jain: This was a diabetes conference, so obviously we are very pancreas focused. At this conference, we went outside our general area of territory, going outside of the pancreas and delving into other organ states. What I found fascinating were some data regarding the effects of incretin therapy on the lung, and in particular, some of the restrictive lung disorders.

Dr. Kim, you attended these sessions as well. Can you tell us a little bit more about the results that were discussed? 

Dr. Kim: This is an interesting field. The moderator of the session went up and said that there has been no time in any previous ADA sessions where the lung issue was actually discussed. This was the first time ever.

They had some of the world leaders in this field, so it was really awesome to see them. Just to paint a picture of these obese asthmatic patients, they are challenging cases because, as you know, the main therapy for any asthmatic patient is inhaled corticosteroid.

Patients who are obese have quite a bit of a steroid resistance. Therefore, they end up being on many medications that sometimes are off label, and many end up on biologics as well. Therefore, the respiratory world has been seeking therapies for these obese asthmatic patients who are likely to be steroid resistant because these people are also likely to end up on an oral steroid as well.

Dr. Jain, you know the effect of the steroids much better than I do, and it’s like a laundry list. We really don’t want our patients to be on oral steroids. 

In the past few years, GLP-1 has been studied quite extensively in the lung, especially in the world of asthma, and also in COPD. What’s really fascinating is that the GLP-1 receptors have been found to be quite abundant in the airway. Some studies show that the highest concentration of GLP-1 lies in the airway, whereas some studies have said that it’s the third most common area to find the GLP-1. 

It is not a surprise that GLP-1 is being studied in managing the airway, especially airway inflammation in asthma and COPD patients. The preliminary data have been quite encouraging. They also discussed that there are new medications coming out that seem to be incretin based, so we’ll wait to see what those studies show.

There are two current phase 3 trials being held at the moment. One is using semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous and another one is using metformin to reduce the airway inflammation in these asthmatic patients and also in some COPD patients. We’ll look forward to these results.

Dr. Jain: That’s really important to note because we see that there is a high density of these receptors in the airways, and hitherto we had no idea about the overall effect. Now, we’re looking at, as you mentioned, individuals with obesity who have asthma, so there are both the restrictive and obstructive components in the lung coming into play here.

From an endocrinology perspective, I’m thinking that this could be multiple effects of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, where on one hand you’re managing the obesity and you’re working along that line, and on the other hand, it could have local anti-inflammatory effects in the lung. Hence, there could be potential improvement in the overall pulmonary function of these individuals. 

Dr. Kim: We are seeing this in primary care. Ever since I found out this information, I have started numerous patients, who are obese, asthmatic patients who do not have diabetes, on GLP-1 therapies, and their pulmonary function tests have improved significantly.

As a matter of fact, one of my personal friends is a severe asthmatic patient. She ends up being on oral steroids about three times a year. There was even one day when I saw her in one of my classes and she was dyspneic. She was short of breath. 

I introduced her to one of my colleagues who’s a respirologist and very much into the impact of the incretins and asthma, and she was started on a GLP-1 receptor agonist. She lost about 30 pounds of weight, but now she is labeled as a mild asthmatic. Her pulmonary function test is completely normal. She hasn’t touched an oral steroid for a couple of years now.

That is a huge success story and I’m seeing that even in my own clinic as well. It’s a huge win for the respiratory world.

Dr. Jain: I think from an endocrinology perspective as well, if we are initiating GLP-1 receptor agonists or medications in that class, where we use it for management of obesity, sooner or later we do hit a stage where people will plateau with their weight loss. They won’t have any additional weight loss.

We tell individuals at that time that the fact that they’re able to maintain the weight loss still means that the medication is working from the obesity perspective. For individuals who also have asthma, it would be a good point to tell them that it could still have potential effects on reducing inflammation ongoing. Hence, even though they may not be losing any additional weight, it would still be helpful to continue on these medications from a pulmonary perspective. 

Dr. Kim: Right now these pleiotropic effects of GLP-1 agents are absolutely mind-blowing. I mentioned in one of my respiratory presentations to a bunch of respirologists that diabetes is taking over the world, including the respiratory world. Well, you can imagine what their faces were like. However, they were quite impressed at that, and they were very excited with what these two phase 3 trials will show. 

Dr. Jain: I think, based on the ADA 2024 conference, GLP-1 receptor agonists continue to be the gift that keeps giving. We have the effects on diabetes, obesity, kidney function, liver protection, lungs, and Alzheimer’s. We saw some sessions about potential use in people with alcohol misuse disorder or gambling problems. Clearly, there’s a large amount of research that›s being done with these agents. 

Perhaps when you and I talk about ADA 2025, we might be able to talk about some more pleiotropic benefits outside the pancreas. Until then, please do check out our other videos from ADA 2024. Thanks for joining us again, Dr. Kim.

Dr. Kim: Thank you very much for having me.
 

Dr. Jain, clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, and endocrinologist, TLC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has disclosed ties with Abbott, Acerus, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bausch Healthcare, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Care to Know, CCRN, Connected in Motion, CPD Network, Dexcom, Diabetes Canada, Eli Lilly, GSK, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Master Clinician Alliance, MDBriefcase, Merck, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Partners in Progressive Medical Education, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Timed Right, WebMD, Gilead Sciences, Insulet, PocketPills, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Kim, clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, has disclosed ties with Abbott, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Embecta, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Linpharma, Novo Nordisk, Miravo, Otsuka, Pfizer, Teva, Takeda, and Sanofi, and Partners in Progressive Medical Education.
 

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

Systemic amyloidosis is a rare and complex disease characterized by the extracellular deposition of misfolded proteins, known as amyloid fibrils, in various tissues and organs. This heterogeneous disorder can present with a wide range of clinical manifestations, including dermatological symptoms that may be the first or predominant feature. Systemic amyloidosis is characterized by macroglossia, periorbital purpura, and waxy skin plaques. Lateral scalloping of the tongue may be seen due to impingement of the teeth. Cutaneous amyloidosis occurs when amyloid is deposited in the skin, without internal organ involvement. Variants of cutaneous amyloidosis include macular, lichen, nodular and biphasic.

This condition requires a thorough diagnostic workup, including serum and urine protein electrophoresis and biopsy of the affected tissue. Biopsy of a cutaneous amyloidosis lesion will show fractured, amorphous, eosinophilic material in the dermis. Pigment and epidermal changes are often found with cutaneous amyloidosis, including hyperkeratosis, acanthosis, hypergranulosis, parakeratosis, and epidermal atrophy. Stains that may be used include Congo red showing apple-green birefringence, thioflavin T, and crystal violet.

If untreated, the prognosis is generally poor, related to the extent of organ involvement. Cardiac involvement, a common feature of systemic amyloidosis, can lead to restrictive cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmias. Management strategies include steroids, chemotherapy, and stem cell transplantation. Medications include dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and melphalan.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Brunt EM, Tiniakos DG. Clin Liver Dis. 2004 Nov;8(4):915-30, x. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2004.06.009.

2. Bolognia JL et al. (2017). Dermatology E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences.

3. Mehrotra K et al. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Aug;11(8):WC01-WC05. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/24273.10334.

4. Banypersad SM et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2012 Apr;1(2):e000364. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.111.000364.

5. Bustamante JG, Zaidi SRH. Amyloidosis. [Updated 2023 Jul 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

Systemic amyloidosis is a rare and complex disease characterized by the extracellular deposition of misfolded proteins, known as amyloid fibrils, in various tissues and organs. This heterogeneous disorder can present with a wide range of clinical manifestations, including dermatological symptoms that may be the first or predominant feature. Systemic amyloidosis is characterized by macroglossia, periorbital purpura, and waxy skin plaques. Lateral scalloping of the tongue may be seen due to impingement of the teeth. Cutaneous amyloidosis occurs when amyloid is deposited in the skin, without internal organ involvement. Variants of cutaneous amyloidosis include macular, lichen, nodular and biphasic.

This condition requires a thorough diagnostic workup, including serum and urine protein electrophoresis and biopsy of the affected tissue. Biopsy of a cutaneous amyloidosis lesion will show fractured, amorphous, eosinophilic material in the dermis. Pigment and epidermal changes are often found with cutaneous amyloidosis, including hyperkeratosis, acanthosis, hypergranulosis, parakeratosis, and epidermal atrophy. Stains that may be used include Congo red showing apple-green birefringence, thioflavin T, and crystal violet.

If untreated, the prognosis is generally poor, related to the extent of organ involvement. Cardiac involvement, a common feature of systemic amyloidosis, can lead to restrictive cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmias. Management strategies include steroids, chemotherapy, and stem cell transplantation. Medications include dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and melphalan.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Brunt EM, Tiniakos DG. Clin Liver Dis. 2004 Nov;8(4):915-30, x. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2004.06.009.

2. Bolognia JL et al. (2017). Dermatology E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences.

3. Mehrotra K et al. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Aug;11(8):WC01-WC05. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/24273.10334.

4. Banypersad SM et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2012 Apr;1(2):e000364. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.111.000364.

5. Bustamante JG, Zaidi SRH. Amyloidosis. [Updated 2023 Jul 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

Systemic amyloidosis is a rare and complex disease characterized by the extracellular deposition of misfolded proteins, known as amyloid fibrils, in various tissues and organs. This heterogeneous disorder can present with a wide range of clinical manifestations, including dermatological symptoms that may be the first or predominant feature. Systemic amyloidosis is characterized by macroglossia, periorbital purpura, and waxy skin plaques. Lateral scalloping of the tongue may be seen due to impingement of the teeth. Cutaneous amyloidosis occurs when amyloid is deposited in the skin, without internal organ involvement. Variants of cutaneous amyloidosis include macular, lichen, nodular and biphasic.

This condition requires a thorough diagnostic workup, including serum and urine protein electrophoresis and biopsy of the affected tissue. Biopsy of a cutaneous amyloidosis lesion will show fractured, amorphous, eosinophilic material in the dermis. Pigment and epidermal changes are often found with cutaneous amyloidosis, including hyperkeratosis, acanthosis, hypergranulosis, parakeratosis, and epidermal atrophy. Stains that may be used include Congo red showing apple-green birefringence, thioflavin T, and crystal violet.

If untreated, the prognosis is generally poor, related to the extent of organ involvement. Cardiac involvement, a common feature of systemic amyloidosis, can lead to restrictive cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmias. Management strategies include steroids, chemotherapy, and stem cell transplantation. Medications include dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and melphalan.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Brunt EM, Tiniakos DG. Clin Liver Dis. 2004 Nov;8(4):915-30, x. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2004.06.009.

2. Bolognia JL et al. (2017). Dermatology E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences.

3. Mehrotra K et al. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Aug;11(8):WC01-WC05. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/24273.10334.

4. Banypersad SM et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2012 Apr;1(2):e000364. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.111.000364.

5. Bustamante JG, Zaidi SRH. Amyloidosis. [Updated 2023 Jul 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I would like to briefly discuss what I consider to be a very discouraging report and one that I believe we as an oncology society and, quite frankly, as a medical community need to deal with. 

The manuscript I’m referring to is from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, titled, “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage in Children Ages 9-17 Years: United States, 2022.” This particular analysis looked at the coverage of both men and women — young boys and young girls, I would say — receiving at least one dose of the recommended human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. 

Since 2006, girls have been recommended to receive HPV vaccination; for boys, it’s been since 2011. Certainly, the time period that we’re considering falls within the recommendations based on overwhelmingly positive data. Now, today, still, the recommendation is for more than one vaccine. Obviously, there may be evidence in the future that a single vaccination may be acceptable or appropriate. But today, it’s more than one. 

In this particular analysis, they were looking at just a single vaccination. The vaccines have targeted young individuals, both male and female children aged 11-12 years, but it’s certainly acceptable to look starting at age 9. 

What is the bottom line? At least one dose of the HPV vaccination was given to 38.6% of children aged 9-17 years in 2022. We are talking about a cancer-preventive vaccine, which on the basis of population-based data in the United States, but also in other countries, is incredibly effective in preventing HPV-associated cancers. This not only includes cervical cancer, but also a large percentage of head and neck cancers.

For this vaccine, which is incredibly safe and incredibly effective, in this country, only 38.6% have received even a single dose. It is noted that the individuals with private insurance had a higher rate, at 41.5%, than individuals with no insurance, at only 20.7%. 

In my opinion, this is clearly a failure of our public health establishment at all levels. My own focus has been in gynecologic cancers. I’ve seen young women with advanced cervical cancer, and this is a disease we can prevent. Yet, this is where we are. 

For those of you who are interested in cancer prevention or public health, I think this is a very sobering statistic. It’s my plea and my hope that we can, as a society, somehow do something about it. 

I thank you for listening. I would encourage you to think about this question if you’re in this area.
 

Dr. Markman, professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I would like to briefly discuss what I consider to be a very discouraging report and one that I believe we as an oncology society and, quite frankly, as a medical community need to deal with. 

The manuscript I’m referring to is from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, titled, “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage in Children Ages 9-17 Years: United States, 2022.” This particular analysis looked at the coverage of both men and women — young boys and young girls, I would say — receiving at least one dose of the recommended human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. 

Since 2006, girls have been recommended to receive HPV vaccination; for boys, it’s been since 2011. Certainly, the time period that we’re considering falls within the recommendations based on overwhelmingly positive data. Now, today, still, the recommendation is for more than one vaccine. Obviously, there may be evidence in the future that a single vaccination may be acceptable or appropriate. But today, it’s more than one. 

In this particular analysis, they were looking at just a single vaccination. The vaccines have targeted young individuals, both male and female children aged 11-12 years, but it’s certainly acceptable to look starting at age 9. 

What is the bottom line? At least one dose of the HPV vaccination was given to 38.6% of children aged 9-17 years in 2022. We are talking about a cancer-preventive vaccine, which on the basis of population-based data in the United States, but also in other countries, is incredibly effective in preventing HPV-associated cancers. This not only includes cervical cancer, but also a large percentage of head and neck cancers.

For this vaccine, which is incredibly safe and incredibly effective, in this country, only 38.6% have received even a single dose. It is noted that the individuals with private insurance had a higher rate, at 41.5%, than individuals with no insurance, at only 20.7%. 

In my opinion, this is clearly a failure of our public health establishment at all levels. My own focus has been in gynecologic cancers. I’ve seen young women with advanced cervical cancer, and this is a disease we can prevent. Yet, this is where we are. 

For those of you who are interested in cancer prevention or public health, I think this is a very sobering statistic. It’s my plea and my hope that we can, as a society, somehow do something about it. 

I thank you for listening. I would encourage you to think about this question if you’re in this area.
 

Dr. Markman, professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I would like to briefly discuss what I consider to be a very discouraging report and one that I believe we as an oncology society and, quite frankly, as a medical community need to deal with. 

The manuscript I’m referring to is from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, titled, “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage in Children Ages 9-17 Years: United States, 2022.” This particular analysis looked at the coverage of both men and women — young boys and young girls, I would say — receiving at least one dose of the recommended human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. 

Since 2006, girls have been recommended to receive HPV vaccination; for boys, it’s been since 2011. Certainly, the time period that we’re considering falls within the recommendations based on overwhelmingly positive data. Now, today, still, the recommendation is for more than one vaccine. Obviously, there may be evidence in the future that a single vaccination may be acceptable or appropriate. But today, it’s more than one. 

In this particular analysis, they were looking at just a single vaccination. The vaccines have targeted young individuals, both male and female children aged 11-12 years, but it’s certainly acceptable to look starting at age 9. 

What is the bottom line? At least one dose of the HPV vaccination was given to 38.6% of children aged 9-17 years in 2022. We are talking about a cancer-preventive vaccine, which on the basis of population-based data in the United States, but also in other countries, is incredibly effective in preventing HPV-associated cancers. This not only includes cervical cancer, but also a large percentage of head and neck cancers.

For this vaccine, which is incredibly safe and incredibly effective, in this country, only 38.6% have received even a single dose. It is noted that the individuals with private insurance had a higher rate, at 41.5%, than individuals with no insurance, at only 20.7%. 

In my opinion, this is clearly a failure of our public health establishment at all levels. My own focus has been in gynecologic cancers. I’ve seen young women with advanced cervical cancer, and this is a disease we can prevent. Yet, this is where we are. 

For those of you who are interested in cancer prevention or public health, I think this is a very sobering statistic. It’s my plea and my hope that we can, as a society, somehow do something about it. 

I thank you for listening. I would encourage you to think about this question if you’re in this area.
 

Dr. Markman, professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 450,000 US deaths are expected this year from conditions attributed to cigarette smoking. Although the percentage of adults who smoke declined from 21% in 2005 to 11% in 2022, the annual death toll has been stable since 2005 and isn’t expected to decline until 2030, owing to an aging population of current and former smokers.

In 2022, based on a national survey, two thirds of the 28.8 million US adult smokers wanted to quit, and more than half tried quitting on their own or with the help of clinicians, but less than 9% succeeded in kicking the habit. The health benefits of quitting, summarized in a patient education handout from the American Cancer Society, include a lower risk for cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the handout states, “quitting smoking can add as much as 10 years to your life, compared to if you continued to smoke.”

For my patients older than age 50 who are lifelong smokers, the qualifier “as much as” can be a sticking point. Although most recognize that continuing to smoke exposes them to greater health risks and are willing to undergo lung cancer screening and receive pneumococcal vaccines, a kind of fatalism frequently sets in. I’ve heard more times than I can recall some version of the declaration, “It’s too late for quitting to make much difference for me.” Many smokers think that once they reach middle age, gains in life expectancy will be too small to be worth the intense effort and multiple failed attempts that are typically required to quit permanently. Until recently, there were few data I could call on to persuade them they were wrong.

In February 2024, Dr. Eo Rin Cho and colleagues pooled data from four national cohort studies (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada) to calculate mortality differences among current, former, and never smokers aged 20-79 years. Compared with never smokers, lifelong smokers died an average of 12-13 years earlier. However, quitting before age 50 nearly eliminated the excess mortality associated with smoking, and in the 50- to 59-year-old age group, cessation eventually reduced excess mortality by 92%-95%. Better yet, more than half of the benefits occurred within the first 3 years after cessation.

At first glance, these estimates may seem too good to be true. A few months later, though, a different research group, using data from a large cancer prevention study and 2018 US population census and mortality rates, largely confirmed their findings. Dr. Thuy Le and colleagues found that quitting at age 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75 years resulted in average life gains of 8, 5.6, 3.5, 1.7, and 0.7 years, respectively, relative to continuing to smoke. Because no patient is average, the analysis also presented some helpful probabilities. For example, a smoker who quits at age 65 has about a 1 in 4 chance of gaining at least 1 full year of life and a 1 in 6 chance of gaining at least 4 years. In other words, from a life expectancy perspective alone, it’s almost never too late to quit smoking.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An estimated 450,000 US deaths are expected this year from conditions attributed to cigarette smoking. Although the percentage of adults who smoke declined from 21% in 2005 to 11% in 2022, the annual death toll has been stable since 2005 and isn’t expected to decline until 2030, owing to an aging population of current and former smokers.

In 2022, based on a national survey, two thirds of the 28.8 million US adult smokers wanted to quit, and more than half tried quitting on their own or with the help of clinicians, but less than 9% succeeded in kicking the habit. The health benefits of quitting, summarized in a patient education handout from the American Cancer Society, include a lower risk for cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the handout states, “quitting smoking can add as much as 10 years to your life, compared to if you continued to smoke.”

For my patients older than age 50 who are lifelong smokers, the qualifier “as much as” can be a sticking point. Although most recognize that continuing to smoke exposes them to greater health risks and are willing to undergo lung cancer screening and receive pneumococcal vaccines, a kind of fatalism frequently sets in. I’ve heard more times than I can recall some version of the declaration, “It’s too late for quitting to make much difference for me.” Many smokers think that once they reach middle age, gains in life expectancy will be too small to be worth the intense effort and multiple failed attempts that are typically required to quit permanently. Until recently, there were few data I could call on to persuade them they were wrong.

In February 2024, Dr. Eo Rin Cho and colleagues pooled data from four national cohort studies (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada) to calculate mortality differences among current, former, and never smokers aged 20-79 years. Compared with never smokers, lifelong smokers died an average of 12-13 years earlier. However, quitting before age 50 nearly eliminated the excess mortality associated with smoking, and in the 50- to 59-year-old age group, cessation eventually reduced excess mortality by 92%-95%. Better yet, more than half of the benefits occurred within the first 3 years after cessation.

At first glance, these estimates may seem too good to be true. A few months later, though, a different research group, using data from a large cancer prevention study and 2018 US population census and mortality rates, largely confirmed their findings. Dr. Thuy Le and colleagues found that quitting at age 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75 years resulted in average life gains of 8, 5.6, 3.5, 1.7, and 0.7 years, respectively, relative to continuing to smoke. Because no patient is average, the analysis also presented some helpful probabilities. For example, a smoker who quits at age 65 has about a 1 in 4 chance of gaining at least 1 full year of life and a 1 in 6 chance of gaining at least 4 years. In other words, from a life expectancy perspective alone, it’s almost never too late to quit smoking.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An estimated 450,000 US deaths are expected this year from conditions attributed to cigarette smoking. Although the percentage of adults who smoke declined from 21% in 2005 to 11% in 2022, the annual death toll has been stable since 2005 and isn’t expected to decline until 2030, owing to an aging population of current and former smokers.

In 2022, based on a national survey, two thirds of the 28.8 million US adult smokers wanted to quit, and more than half tried quitting on their own or with the help of clinicians, but less than 9% succeeded in kicking the habit. The health benefits of quitting, summarized in a patient education handout from the American Cancer Society, include a lower risk for cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the handout states, “quitting smoking can add as much as 10 years to your life, compared to if you continued to smoke.”

For my patients older than age 50 who are lifelong smokers, the qualifier “as much as” can be a sticking point. Although most recognize that continuing to smoke exposes them to greater health risks and are willing to undergo lung cancer screening and receive pneumococcal vaccines, a kind of fatalism frequently sets in. I’ve heard more times than I can recall some version of the declaration, “It’s too late for quitting to make much difference for me.” Many smokers think that once they reach middle age, gains in life expectancy will be too small to be worth the intense effort and multiple failed attempts that are typically required to quit permanently. Until recently, there were few data I could call on to persuade them they were wrong.

In February 2024, Dr. Eo Rin Cho and colleagues pooled data from four national cohort studies (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada) to calculate mortality differences among current, former, and never smokers aged 20-79 years. Compared with never smokers, lifelong smokers died an average of 12-13 years earlier. However, quitting before age 50 nearly eliminated the excess mortality associated with smoking, and in the 50- to 59-year-old age group, cessation eventually reduced excess mortality by 92%-95%. Better yet, more than half of the benefits occurred within the first 3 years after cessation.

At first glance, these estimates may seem too good to be true. A few months later, though, a different research group, using data from a large cancer prevention study and 2018 US population census and mortality rates, largely confirmed their findings. Dr. Thuy Le and colleagues found that quitting at age 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75 years resulted in average life gains of 8, 5.6, 3.5, 1.7, and 0.7 years, respectively, relative to continuing to smoke. Because no patient is average, the analysis also presented some helpful probabilities. For example, a smoker who quits at age 65 has about a 1 in 4 chance of gaining at least 1 full year of life and a 1 in 6 chance of gaining at least 4 years. In other words, from a life expectancy perspective alone, it’s almost never too late to quit smoking.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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