CHEST Physician

Could mobile technology help patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who may not seek care until they experience an exacerbation? A recent study found a wearable device and mobile app were deemed useful by patients with COPD to aid in the management of their condition, based on data from 26 adults who used devices and apps for 6 months.

Self-management interventions for COPD can potentially improve quality of life and reduce hospitalizations, wrote Robert Wu, MD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto, and colleagues. However, data on the use of devices and apps to manage COPD by providing reminders for self-care, predicting early exacerbations, and facilitating communication with healthcare providers are limited, they said.

In a study published in COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, the researchers reported details from interviews with 26 adult patients with COPD who used a wearable device and app for 6 months to help manage their condition. The interviews were part of a larger cohort study.

“The motivation for this study was to understand the patient perspective on using wearables to help support their chronic lung condition,” Dr. Wu said in an interview. “People with COPD can be at high risk of being admitted to hospital, so it is important to see if innovative technology like wearables or remote monitoring can help them,” he said.

Individuals with COPD tend to be older and less technologically adept, and they may be less willing to adopt new technology, he added. “We wanted to understand what would make people use a self-management app,” he said.

On enrollment in the study, patients received a smartwatch and a smartphone with a preinstalled app for COPD management. The app included daily reminders to take medication, perform guided breathing sessions, check blood oxygen on the smartwatch or an oximeter, and complete a symptom questionnaire. The app also allowed participants to record when they exercised and provided feedback on heart rate and daily activity, including passive step counts. Participants earned stars for meeting daily exercise goals of active minutes and total steps.

Participants received training in the use of the app from members of the research team and completed semi-structured interviews after using the items for 6 months.

The researchers divided their findings into four main themes: information, support and reassurance; barriers to adoption; impact on communication with healthcare providers; and opportunities for improvement.

Overall, most patients reported that the feedback they received through the app was useful. In particular, participants reported that the app and smartwatch provided reassurance and feedback about stable vitals during exercise, which encouraged some to adhere to regular exercise routines. Approximately two thirds (65%) said that the daily exercise reminders were motivational. In addition, 20% reported that they interpreted vital data, including heart rate, as a signal to slow down.

Participants rated medication reminders and the option to create an action plan for COPD management as the least useful features; 69% said that they already had medication reminders in place.

A total of four patients experienced technical difficulties with the app that kept it from impacting their disease management. Some of the suggestions from participants for improvement included adding information about food intake, weight, blood pressure, and temperature to the health information being tracked, as well as restoring the oxygen saturation measure, which had been disabled because of accuracy concerns. Barriers to use of the device and app included the bulkiness of the device as well as the reported technical malfunctions.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and likely focus on early adopters of technology, which may not represent most patients with COPD, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the recruitment of most patients after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected their experience and also limited the assessment of the app on communication with healthcare providers, the researchers noted. The study also did not address financial or social barriers.

However, the results suggest that patients with COPD identified the potential value of wearable devices for disease management and that improved technology could promote patient empowerment and lifestyle changes, the researchers concluded.
 

Technology Can Augment Care and Connections 

“As clinicians and researchers, we have ideas about what patients would want, but it is always better to get their feedback of what they really want and what they would use,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. “We thought older adults with COPD would be less likely to engage with the technology. We found that many wanted to have their data to help make connections with their condition, and some purchased smartwatches after the study to make these connections,” he said.

The takeaway message from the current study is that people with COPD may benefit from self-management apps, but they would like to use them in collaboration with their healthcare team, said Dr. Wu. “Clinicians may see more of their patients bringing in data from wearables and apps,” he noted.

Concerns persist that using technology to help support people with COPD could increase the “digital divide” and that those with lower digital literacy, financial insecurity, or English as a second language could be left behind, and it is important to remain attentive to equity in pursuing the use of devices and apps, Dr. Wu told this news organization.

Looking ahead, research involving self-management, remote monitoring, and wearable devices has focused on other conditions such as heart failure and diabetes, and more work is needed to examine how these technologies can improve care for patients with COPD, said Dr. Wu. “We see this study as one important step — to understand what will motivate people to use self-management apps and wearables,” he said.

“Acute exacerbations of COPD are very important events that can alter quality of life, lung function, and even mortality in COPD,” said Nathaniel Marchetti, DO, medical director of the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Many of these exacerbations are not recognized by clinicians or even patients until they present late and end up in an urgent office visit with a physician or in the emergency room [ER], so addressing exacerbations earlier has the potential to avoid ER visits or hospitalizations,” he said.

The study identified areas for further research, Dr. Marchetti said. “More information would be needed to determine if the use of an app to monitor heart rate, symptoms, and oxygen saturation could alter important outcomes in COPD such as exacerbations,” he noted.

As for limitations, “no one wants to carry two smartphones,” said Dr. Marchetti. “Future devices need to be easy to use and available on the patient’s own phone,” he said. Patients should be able to choose a smartwatch or possibly a bracelet that can be synced to a smartphone, he added. The current study also failed to address what would be done with collected data, such as link them to health professionals who would offer treatment when needed, he said.

Overall, the data from the current study suggest that patients with COPD would like some device that monitors symptoms and vital signs and offers suggestions/incentives to exercise and take medications, Dr. Marchetti told this news organization. “A larger study will be needed that compares how such a device could improve outcomes of COPD; outcomes could include admissions/ER visits, exercise performance, or compliance with medication,” he said. In addition, clinical algorithms for the identification and treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD would be needed, Dr. Marchetti noted. These algorithms would determine whether treatment decisions would be initiated by a clinical team of health professionals or whether clinicians would provide medications that the patients would then decide to take based on data collected on the app, using the investigator-provided algorithms, he said.

The study was supported in part by Samsung Research America (SRA) and was initiated by Dr. Wu with input from SRA, but the company had no role in the methods or results. The study also was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Dr. Marchetti had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Could mobile technology help patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who may not seek care until they experience an exacerbation? A recent study found a wearable device and mobile app were deemed useful by patients with COPD to aid in the management of their condition, based on data from 26 adults who used devices and apps for 6 months.

Self-management interventions for COPD can potentially improve quality of life and reduce hospitalizations, wrote Robert Wu, MD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto, and colleagues. However, data on the use of devices and apps to manage COPD by providing reminders for self-care, predicting early exacerbations, and facilitating communication with healthcare providers are limited, they said.

In a study published in COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, the researchers reported details from interviews with 26 adult patients with COPD who used a wearable device and app for 6 months to help manage their condition. The interviews were part of a larger cohort study.

“The motivation for this study was to understand the patient perspective on using wearables to help support their chronic lung condition,” Dr. Wu said in an interview. “People with COPD can be at high risk of being admitted to hospital, so it is important to see if innovative technology like wearables or remote monitoring can help them,” he said.

Individuals with COPD tend to be older and less technologically adept, and they may be less willing to adopt new technology, he added. “We wanted to understand what would make people use a self-management app,” he said.

On enrollment in the study, patients received a smartwatch and a smartphone with a preinstalled app for COPD management. The app included daily reminders to take medication, perform guided breathing sessions, check blood oxygen on the smartwatch or an oximeter, and complete a symptom questionnaire. The app also allowed participants to record when they exercised and provided feedback on heart rate and daily activity, including passive step counts. Participants earned stars for meeting daily exercise goals of active minutes and total steps.

Participants received training in the use of the app from members of the research team and completed semi-structured interviews after using the items for 6 months.

The researchers divided their findings into four main themes: information, support and reassurance; barriers to adoption; impact on communication with healthcare providers; and opportunities for improvement.

Overall, most patients reported that the feedback they received through the app was useful. In particular, participants reported that the app and smartwatch provided reassurance and feedback about stable vitals during exercise, which encouraged some to adhere to regular exercise routines. Approximately two thirds (65%) said that the daily exercise reminders were motivational. In addition, 20% reported that they interpreted vital data, including heart rate, as a signal to slow down.

Participants rated medication reminders and the option to create an action plan for COPD management as the least useful features; 69% said that they already had medication reminders in place.

A total of four patients experienced technical difficulties with the app that kept it from impacting their disease management. Some of the suggestions from participants for improvement included adding information about food intake, weight, blood pressure, and temperature to the health information being tracked, as well as restoring the oxygen saturation measure, which had been disabled because of accuracy concerns. Barriers to use of the device and app included the bulkiness of the device as well as the reported technical malfunctions.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and likely focus on early adopters of technology, which may not represent most patients with COPD, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the recruitment of most patients after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected their experience and also limited the assessment of the app on communication with healthcare providers, the researchers noted. The study also did not address financial or social barriers.

However, the results suggest that patients with COPD identified the potential value of wearable devices for disease management and that improved technology could promote patient empowerment and lifestyle changes, the researchers concluded.
 

Technology Can Augment Care and Connections 

“As clinicians and researchers, we have ideas about what patients would want, but it is always better to get their feedback of what they really want and what they would use,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. “We thought older adults with COPD would be less likely to engage with the technology. We found that many wanted to have their data to help make connections with their condition, and some purchased smartwatches after the study to make these connections,” he said.

The takeaway message from the current study is that people with COPD may benefit from self-management apps, but they would like to use them in collaboration with their healthcare team, said Dr. Wu. “Clinicians may see more of their patients bringing in data from wearables and apps,” he noted.

Concerns persist that using technology to help support people with COPD could increase the “digital divide” and that those with lower digital literacy, financial insecurity, or English as a second language could be left behind, and it is important to remain attentive to equity in pursuing the use of devices and apps, Dr. Wu told this news organization.

Looking ahead, research involving self-management, remote monitoring, and wearable devices has focused on other conditions such as heart failure and diabetes, and more work is needed to examine how these technologies can improve care for patients with COPD, said Dr. Wu. “We see this study as one important step — to understand what will motivate people to use self-management apps and wearables,” he said.

“Acute exacerbations of COPD are very important events that can alter quality of life, lung function, and even mortality in COPD,” said Nathaniel Marchetti, DO, medical director of the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Many of these exacerbations are not recognized by clinicians or even patients until they present late and end up in an urgent office visit with a physician or in the emergency room [ER], so addressing exacerbations earlier has the potential to avoid ER visits or hospitalizations,” he said.

The study identified areas for further research, Dr. Marchetti said. “More information would be needed to determine if the use of an app to monitor heart rate, symptoms, and oxygen saturation could alter important outcomes in COPD such as exacerbations,” he noted.

As for limitations, “no one wants to carry two smartphones,” said Dr. Marchetti. “Future devices need to be easy to use and available on the patient’s own phone,” he said. Patients should be able to choose a smartwatch or possibly a bracelet that can be synced to a smartphone, he added. The current study also failed to address what would be done with collected data, such as link them to health professionals who would offer treatment when needed, he said.

Overall, the data from the current study suggest that patients with COPD would like some device that monitors symptoms and vital signs and offers suggestions/incentives to exercise and take medications, Dr. Marchetti told this news organization. “A larger study will be needed that compares how such a device could improve outcomes of COPD; outcomes could include admissions/ER visits, exercise performance, or compliance with medication,” he said. In addition, clinical algorithms for the identification and treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD would be needed, Dr. Marchetti noted. These algorithms would determine whether treatment decisions would be initiated by a clinical team of health professionals or whether clinicians would provide medications that the patients would then decide to take based on data collected on the app, using the investigator-provided algorithms, he said.

The study was supported in part by Samsung Research America (SRA) and was initiated by Dr. Wu with input from SRA, but the company had no role in the methods or results. The study also was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Dr. Marchetti had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Could mobile technology help patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who may not seek care until they experience an exacerbation? A recent study found a wearable device and mobile app were deemed useful by patients with COPD to aid in the management of their condition, based on data from 26 adults who used devices and apps for 6 months.

Self-management interventions for COPD can potentially improve quality of life and reduce hospitalizations, wrote Robert Wu, MD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto, and colleagues. However, data on the use of devices and apps to manage COPD by providing reminders for self-care, predicting early exacerbations, and facilitating communication with healthcare providers are limited, they said.

In a study published in COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, the researchers reported details from interviews with 26 adult patients with COPD who used a wearable device and app for 6 months to help manage their condition. The interviews were part of a larger cohort study.

“The motivation for this study was to understand the patient perspective on using wearables to help support their chronic lung condition,” Dr. Wu said in an interview. “People with COPD can be at high risk of being admitted to hospital, so it is important to see if innovative technology like wearables or remote monitoring can help them,” he said.

Individuals with COPD tend to be older and less technologically adept, and they may be less willing to adopt new technology, he added. “We wanted to understand what would make people use a self-management app,” he said.

On enrollment in the study, patients received a smartwatch and a smartphone with a preinstalled app for COPD management. The app included daily reminders to take medication, perform guided breathing sessions, check blood oxygen on the smartwatch or an oximeter, and complete a symptom questionnaire. The app also allowed participants to record when they exercised and provided feedback on heart rate and daily activity, including passive step counts. Participants earned stars for meeting daily exercise goals of active minutes and total steps.

Participants received training in the use of the app from members of the research team and completed semi-structured interviews after using the items for 6 months.

The researchers divided their findings into four main themes: information, support and reassurance; barriers to adoption; impact on communication with healthcare providers; and opportunities for improvement.

Overall, most patients reported that the feedback they received through the app was useful. In particular, participants reported that the app and smartwatch provided reassurance and feedback about stable vitals during exercise, which encouraged some to adhere to regular exercise routines. Approximately two thirds (65%) said that the daily exercise reminders were motivational. In addition, 20% reported that they interpreted vital data, including heart rate, as a signal to slow down.

Participants rated medication reminders and the option to create an action plan for COPD management as the least useful features; 69% said that they already had medication reminders in place.

A total of four patients experienced technical difficulties with the app that kept it from impacting their disease management. Some of the suggestions from participants for improvement included adding information about food intake, weight, blood pressure, and temperature to the health information being tracked, as well as restoring the oxygen saturation measure, which had been disabled because of accuracy concerns. Barriers to use of the device and app included the bulkiness of the device as well as the reported technical malfunctions.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and likely focus on early adopters of technology, which may not represent most patients with COPD, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the recruitment of most patients after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected their experience and also limited the assessment of the app on communication with healthcare providers, the researchers noted. The study also did not address financial or social barriers.

However, the results suggest that patients with COPD identified the potential value of wearable devices for disease management and that improved technology could promote patient empowerment and lifestyle changes, the researchers concluded.
 

Technology Can Augment Care and Connections 

“As clinicians and researchers, we have ideas about what patients would want, but it is always better to get their feedback of what they really want and what they would use,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. “We thought older adults with COPD would be less likely to engage with the technology. We found that many wanted to have their data to help make connections with their condition, and some purchased smartwatches after the study to make these connections,” he said.

The takeaway message from the current study is that people with COPD may benefit from self-management apps, but they would like to use them in collaboration with their healthcare team, said Dr. Wu. “Clinicians may see more of their patients bringing in data from wearables and apps,” he noted.

Concerns persist that using technology to help support people with COPD could increase the “digital divide” and that those with lower digital literacy, financial insecurity, or English as a second language could be left behind, and it is important to remain attentive to equity in pursuing the use of devices and apps, Dr. Wu told this news organization.

Looking ahead, research involving self-management, remote monitoring, and wearable devices has focused on other conditions such as heart failure and diabetes, and more work is needed to examine how these technologies can improve care for patients with COPD, said Dr. Wu. “We see this study as one important step — to understand what will motivate people to use self-management apps and wearables,” he said.

“Acute exacerbations of COPD are very important events that can alter quality of life, lung function, and even mortality in COPD,” said Nathaniel Marchetti, DO, medical director of the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Many of these exacerbations are not recognized by clinicians or even patients until they present late and end up in an urgent office visit with a physician or in the emergency room [ER], so addressing exacerbations earlier has the potential to avoid ER visits or hospitalizations,” he said.

The study identified areas for further research, Dr. Marchetti said. “More information would be needed to determine if the use of an app to monitor heart rate, symptoms, and oxygen saturation could alter important outcomes in COPD such as exacerbations,” he noted.

As for limitations, “no one wants to carry two smartphones,” said Dr. Marchetti. “Future devices need to be easy to use and available on the patient’s own phone,” he said. Patients should be able to choose a smartwatch or possibly a bracelet that can be synced to a smartphone, he added. The current study also failed to address what would be done with collected data, such as link them to health professionals who would offer treatment when needed, he said.

Overall, the data from the current study suggest that patients with COPD would like some device that monitors symptoms and vital signs and offers suggestions/incentives to exercise and take medications, Dr. Marchetti told this news organization. “A larger study will be needed that compares how such a device could improve outcomes of COPD; outcomes could include admissions/ER visits, exercise performance, or compliance with medication,” he said. In addition, clinical algorithms for the identification and treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD would be needed, Dr. Marchetti noted. These algorithms would determine whether treatment decisions would be initiated by a clinical team of health professionals or whether clinicians would provide medications that the patients would then decide to take based on data collected on the app, using the investigator-provided algorithms, he said.

The study was supported in part by Samsung Research America (SRA) and was initiated by Dr. Wu with input from SRA, but the company had no role in the methods or results. The study also was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Dr. Marchetti had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We are quickly approaching the typical cold and flu season. But can we call anything typical since 2020? Since 2020, there have been different recommendations for prevention, testing, return to work, and treatment since our world was rocked by the pandemic. Now that we are in the “post-pandemic” era, family physicians and other primary care professionals are the front line for discussions on prevention, evaluation, and treatment of the typical upper-respiratory infections, influenza, and COVID-19.

Let’s start with prevention. We have all heard the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In primary care, we need to focus on prevention. Vaccination is often one of our best tools against the myriad of infections we are hoping to help patients prevent during cold and flu season. Most recently, we have fall vaccinations aimed to prevent COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The number and timing of each of these vaccinations has different recommendations based on a variety of factors including age, pregnancy status, and whether or not the patient is immunocompromised. For the 2024-2025 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended updated vaccines for both influenza and COVID-19.¹

They have also updated the RSV vaccine recommendations to “People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.”²

In addition to vaccines as prevention, there is also hygiene, staying home when sick and away from others who are sick, following guidelines for where and when to wear a face mask, and the general tools of eating well, and getting sufficient sleep and exercise to help maintain the healthiest immune system.

Despite the best of intentions, there will still be many who experience viral infections in this upcoming season. The CDC is currently recommending persons to stay away from others for at least 24 hours after their symptoms improve and they are fever-free without antipyretics. In addition to isolation while sick, general symptom management is something that we can recommend for all of these illnesses.

There is more to consider, though, as our patients face these illnesses. The first question is how to determine the diagnosis — and if that diagnosis is even necessary. Unfortunately, many of these viral illnesses can look the same. They can all cause fevers, chills, and other upper respiratory symptoms. They are all fairly contagious. All of these viruses can cause serious illness associated with additional complications. It is not truly possible to determine which virus someone has by symptoms alone, our patients can have multiple viruses at the same time and diagnosis of one does not preclude having another.³

Instead, we truly do need a test for diagnosis. In-office testing is available for RSV, influenza, and COVID-19. Additionally, despite not being as freely available as they were during the pandemic, patients are able to do home COVID tests and then call in with their results. At the time of writing this, at-home rapid influenza tests have also been approved by the FDA but are not yet readily available to the public. These tests are important for determining if the patient is eligible for treatment. Both influenza and COVID-19 have antiviral treatments available to help decrease the severity of the illness and potentially the length of illness and time contagious. According to the CDC, both treatments are underutilized.

This could be because of a lack of testing and diagnosis. It may also be because of a lack of familiarity with the available treatments.^4,5

Influenza treatment is recommended as soon as possible for those with suspected or confirmed diagnosis, immediately for anyone hospitalized, anyone with severe, complicated, or progressing illness, and for those at high risk of severe illness including but not limited to those under 2 years old, those over 65, those who are pregnant, and those with many chronic conditions.

Treatment can also be used for those who are not high risk when diagnosed within 48 hours. In the United States, four antivirals are recommended to treat influenza: oseltamivir phosphate, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. For COVID-19, treatments are also available for mild or moderate disease in those at risk for severe disease. Both remdesivir and nimatrelvir with ritonavir are treatment options that can be used for COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, no specific antiviral is available for the other viral illnesses we see often during this season.

In primary care, we have some important roles to play. We need to continue to discuss all methods of prevention. Not only do vaccine recommendations change at least annually, our patients’ situations change and we have to reassess them. Additionally, people often need to hear things more than once before committing — so it never hurts to continue having those conversations. Combining the conversation about vaccines with other prevention measures is also important so that it does not seem like we are only recommending one thing. We should also start talking about treatment options before our patients are sick. We can communicate what is available as long as they let us know they are sick early. We can also be there to help our patients determine when they are at risk for severe illness and when they should consider a higher level of care.

The availability of home testing gives us the opportunity to provide these treatments via telehealth and even potentially in times when these illnesses are everywhere — with standing orders with our clinical teams. Although it is a busy time for us in the clinic, “cold and flu” season is definitely one of those times when our primary care relationship can truly help our patients.
 

References

1. CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-t0627-vaccine-recommendations.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. CDC Updates RSV Vaccination Recommendation for Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0626-vaccination-adults.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

4. Respiratory Virus Guidance. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

5. Provider Toolkit: Preparing Patients for the Fall and Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/hcp/tools-resources/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We are quickly approaching the typical cold and flu season. But can we call anything typical since 2020? Since 2020, there have been different recommendations for prevention, testing, return to work, and treatment since our world was rocked by the pandemic. Now that we are in the “post-pandemic” era, family physicians and other primary care professionals are the front line for discussions on prevention, evaluation, and treatment of the typical upper-respiratory infections, influenza, and COVID-19.

Let’s start with prevention. We have all heard the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In primary care, we need to focus on prevention. Vaccination is often one of our best tools against the myriad of infections we are hoping to help patients prevent during cold and flu season. Most recently, we have fall vaccinations aimed to prevent COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The number and timing of each of these vaccinations has different recommendations based on a variety of factors including age, pregnancy status, and whether or not the patient is immunocompromised. For the 2024-2025 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended updated vaccines for both influenza and COVID-19.¹

They have also updated the RSV vaccine recommendations to “People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.”²

In addition to vaccines as prevention, there is also hygiene, staying home when sick and away from others who are sick, following guidelines for where and when to wear a face mask, and the general tools of eating well, and getting sufficient sleep and exercise to help maintain the healthiest immune system.

Despite the best of intentions, there will still be many who experience viral infections in this upcoming season. The CDC is currently recommending persons to stay away from others for at least 24 hours after their symptoms improve and they are fever-free without antipyretics. In addition to isolation while sick, general symptom management is something that we can recommend for all of these illnesses.

There is more to consider, though, as our patients face these illnesses. The first question is how to determine the diagnosis — and if that diagnosis is even necessary. Unfortunately, many of these viral illnesses can look the same. They can all cause fevers, chills, and other upper respiratory symptoms. They are all fairly contagious. All of these viruses can cause serious illness associated with additional complications. It is not truly possible to determine which virus someone has by symptoms alone, our patients can have multiple viruses at the same time and diagnosis of one does not preclude having another.³

Instead, we truly do need a test for diagnosis. In-office testing is available for RSV, influenza, and COVID-19. Additionally, despite not being as freely available as they were during the pandemic, patients are able to do home COVID tests and then call in with their results. At the time of writing this, at-home rapid influenza tests have also been approved by the FDA but are not yet readily available to the public. These tests are important for determining if the patient is eligible for treatment. Both influenza and COVID-19 have antiviral treatments available to help decrease the severity of the illness and potentially the length of illness and time contagious. According to the CDC, both treatments are underutilized.

This could be because of a lack of testing and diagnosis. It may also be because of a lack of familiarity with the available treatments.^4,5

Influenza treatment is recommended as soon as possible for those with suspected or confirmed diagnosis, immediately for anyone hospitalized, anyone with severe, complicated, or progressing illness, and for those at high risk of severe illness including but not limited to those under 2 years old, those over 65, those who are pregnant, and those with many chronic conditions.

Treatment can also be used for those who are not high risk when diagnosed within 48 hours. In the United States, four antivirals are recommended to treat influenza: oseltamivir phosphate, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. For COVID-19, treatments are also available for mild or moderate disease in those at risk for severe disease. Both remdesivir and nimatrelvir with ritonavir are treatment options that can be used for COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, no specific antiviral is available for the other viral illnesses we see often during this season.

In primary care, we have some important roles to play. We need to continue to discuss all methods of prevention. Not only do vaccine recommendations change at least annually, our patients’ situations change and we have to reassess them. Additionally, people often need to hear things more than once before committing — so it never hurts to continue having those conversations. Combining the conversation about vaccines with other prevention measures is also important so that it does not seem like we are only recommending one thing. We should also start talking about treatment options before our patients are sick. We can communicate what is available as long as they let us know they are sick early. We can also be there to help our patients determine when they are at risk for severe illness and when they should consider a higher level of care.

The availability of home testing gives us the opportunity to provide these treatments via telehealth and even potentially in times when these illnesses are everywhere — with standing orders with our clinical teams. Although it is a busy time for us in the clinic, “cold and flu” season is definitely one of those times when our primary care relationship can truly help our patients.
 

References

1. CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-t0627-vaccine-recommendations.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. CDC Updates RSV Vaccination Recommendation for Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0626-vaccination-adults.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

4. Respiratory Virus Guidance. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

5. Provider Toolkit: Preparing Patients for the Fall and Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/hcp/tools-resources/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We are quickly approaching the typical cold and flu season. But can we call anything typical since 2020? Since 2020, there have been different recommendations for prevention, testing, return to work, and treatment since our world was rocked by the pandemic. Now that we are in the “post-pandemic” era, family physicians and other primary care professionals are the front line for discussions on prevention, evaluation, and treatment of the typical upper-respiratory infections, influenza, and COVID-19.

Let’s start with prevention. We have all heard the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In primary care, we need to focus on prevention. Vaccination is often one of our best tools against the myriad of infections we are hoping to help patients prevent during cold and flu season. Most recently, we have fall vaccinations aimed to prevent COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The number and timing of each of these vaccinations has different recommendations based on a variety of factors including age, pregnancy status, and whether or not the patient is immunocompromised. For the 2024-2025 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended updated vaccines for both influenza and COVID-19.¹

They have also updated the RSV vaccine recommendations to “People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.”²

In addition to vaccines as prevention, there is also hygiene, staying home when sick and away from others who are sick, following guidelines for where and when to wear a face mask, and the general tools of eating well, and getting sufficient sleep and exercise to help maintain the healthiest immune system.

Despite the best of intentions, there will still be many who experience viral infections in this upcoming season. The CDC is currently recommending persons to stay away from others for at least 24 hours after their symptoms improve and they are fever-free without antipyretics. In addition to isolation while sick, general symptom management is something that we can recommend for all of these illnesses.

There is more to consider, though, as our patients face these illnesses. The first question is how to determine the diagnosis — and if that diagnosis is even necessary. Unfortunately, many of these viral illnesses can look the same. They can all cause fevers, chills, and other upper respiratory symptoms. They are all fairly contagious. All of these viruses can cause serious illness associated with additional complications. It is not truly possible to determine which virus someone has by symptoms alone, our patients can have multiple viruses at the same time and diagnosis of one does not preclude having another.³

Instead, we truly do need a test for diagnosis. In-office testing is available for RSV, influenza, and COVID-19. Additionally, despite not being as freely available as they were during the pandemic, patients are able to do home COVID tests and then call in with their results. At the time of writing this, at-home rapid influenza tests have also been approved by the FDA but are not yet readily available to the public. These tests are important for determining if the patient is eligible for treatment. Both influenza and COVID-19 have antiviral treatments available to help decrease the severity of the illness and potentially the length of illness and time contagious. According to the CDC, both treatments are underutilized.

This could be because of a lack of testing and diagnosis. It may also be because of a lack of familiarity with the available treatments.^4,5

Influenza treatment is recommended as soon as possible for those with suspected or confirmed diagnosis, immediately for anyone hospitalized, anyone with severe, complicated, or progressing illness, and for those at high risk of severe illness including but not limited to those under 2 years old, those over 65, those who are pregnant, and those with many chronic conditions.

Treatment can also be used for those who are not high risk when diagnosed within 48 hours. In the United States, four antivirals are recommended to treat influenza: oseltamivir phosphate, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. For COVID-19, treatments are also available for mild or moderate disease in those at risk for severe disease. Both remdesivir and nimatrelvir with ritonavir are treatment options that can be used for COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, no specific antiviral is available for the other viral illnesses we see often during this season.

In primary care, we have some important roles to play. We need to continue to discuss all methods of prevention. Not only do vaccine recommendations change at least annually, our patients’ situations change and we have to reassess them. Additionally, people often need to hear things more than once before committing — so it never hurts to continue having those conversations. Combining the conversation about vaccines with other prevention measures is also important so that it does not seem like we are only recommending one thing. We should also start talking about treatment options before our patients are sick. We can communicate what is available as long as they let us know they are sick early. We can also be there to help our patients determine when they are at risk for severe illness and when they should consider a higher level of care.

The availability of home testing gives us the opportunity to provide these treatments via telehealth and even potentially in times when these illnesses are everywhere — with standing orders with our clinical teams. Although it is a busy time for us in the clinic, “cold and flu” season is definitely one of those times when our primary care relationship can truly help our patients.
 

References

1. CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-t0627-vaccine-recommendations.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. CDC Updates RSV Vaccination Recommendation for Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0626-vaccination-adults.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

4. Respiratory Virus Guidance. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

5. Provider Toolkit: Preparing Patients for the Fall and Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/hcp/tools-resources/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other sources.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other sources.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other sources.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Among patients with overweight or obesity, frontline immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not associated with a survival benefit compared with conventional chemotherapy. Overall, however, compared with low body mass index (BMI), overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality among patients receiving either therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• The association between BMI and overall survival in patients with cancer who receive immunotherapy or conventional chemotherapy in the frontline remains unclear. Patients with cancer and obesity are generally considered to have a worse prognosis, but some data suggest an obesity paradox, where patients with cancer and a higher BMI demonstrate better overall survival following immunotherapy or chemotherapy.
• To clarify whether (or how) BMI affects overall survival outcomes and the optimal frontline treatment choice, researchers evaluated 31,257 patients with advanced NSCLC from Japan who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 12,816) or conventional chemotherapy (n = 18,441).
• Patient outcomes were assessed according to weight categories and frontline therapy type (immune checkpoint inhibitors or conventional chemotherapy), with overall survival as the primary outcome.
• A BMI < 18.5 was considered underweight, 18.5-24.9 was considered normal weight, 25.0-29.9 was considered overweight, and ≥ 30.0 was considered obese.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the overall population, regardless of weight, patients who received chemotherapy had a higher mortality rate than those who received immunotherapy — 35.9% vs 28.0%, respectively — over a follow-up of 3 years.
• However, overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality compared with a lower BMI among patients with advanced NSCLC, regardless of whether they received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or conventional chemotherapy.
• Among patients who received immunotherapy, the risk for mortality decreased steadily as BMI increased from 15 to 24 and then increased at higher BMIs, indicating a U-shaped association.
• Immunotherapy was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy among patients with a BMI < 28; however, researchers observed no difference in overall survival between the two therapies in those with a BMI ≥ 28.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, “these results support the presence of the obesity paradox in patients with [advanced] NSCLC who underwent either therapy,” the authors concluded.

But when focused on patients in the higher BMI group, there was no overall survival benefit with the frontline immunotherapy vs the conventional chemotherapy. “Immunotherapy therapy may not necessarily be the optimal first-line therapy for patients with overweight or obesity,” the authors wrote, adding that “the use of conventional chemotherapy should also be considered.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasutaka Ihara, PharmD, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Retrospective design has inherent bias. PD-L1 status was not known, and the inclusion of Japanese population may have limited the generalizability of the findings. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University. Several authors reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical sources.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Among patients with overweight or obesity, frontline immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not associated with a survival benefit compared with conventional chemotherapy. Overall, however, compared with low body mass index (BMI), overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality among patients receiving either therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• The association between BMI and overall survival in patients with cancer who receive immunotherapy or conventional chemotherapy in the frontline remains unclear. Patients with cancer and obesity are generally considered to have a worse prognosis, but some data suggest an obesity paradox, where patients with cancer and a higher BMI demonstrate better overall survival following immunotherapy or chemotherapy.
• To clarify whether (or how) BMI affects overall survival outcomes and the optimal frontline treatment choice, researchers evaluated 31,257 patients with advanced NSCLC from Japan who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 12,816) or conventional chemotherapy (n = 18,441).
• Patient outcomes were assessed according to weight categories and frontline therapy type (immune checkpoint inhibitors or conventional chemotherapy), with overall survival as the primary outcome.
• A BMI < 18.5 was considered underweight, 18.5-24.9 was considered normal weight, 25.0-29.9 was considered overweight, and ≥ 30.0 was considered obese.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the overall population, regardless of weight, patients who received chemotherapy had a higher mortality rate than those who received immunotherapy — 35.9% vs 28.0%, respectively — over a follow-up of 3 years.
• However, overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality compared with a lower BMI among patients with advanced NSCLC, regardless of whether they received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or conventional chemotherapy.
• Among patients who received immunotherapy, the risk for mortality decreased steadily as BMI increased from 15 to 24 and then increased at higher BMIs, indicating a U-shaped association.
• Immunotherapy was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy among patients with a BMI < 28; however, researchers observed no difference in overall survival between the two therapies in those with a BMI ≥ 28.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, “these results support the presence of the obesity paradox in patients with [advanced] NSCLC who underwent either therapy,” the authors concluded.

But when focused on patients in the higher BMI group, there was no overall survival benefit with the frontline immunotherapy vs the conventional chemotherapy. “Immunotherapy therapy may not necessarily be the optimal first-line therapy for patients with overweight or obesity,” the authors wrote, adding that “the use of conventional chemotherapy should also be considered.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasutaka Ihara, PharmD, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Retrospective design has inherent bias. PD-L1 status was not known, and the inclusion of Japanese population may have limited the generalizability of the findings. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University. Several authors reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical sources.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Among patients with overweight or obesity, frontline immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not associated with a survival benefit compared with conventional chemotherapy. Overall, however, compared with low body mass index (BMI), overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality among patients receiving either therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• The association between BMI and overall survival in patients with cancer who receive immunotherapy or conventional chemotherapy in the frontline remains unclear. Patients with cancer and obesity are generally considered to have a worse prognosis, but some data suggest an obesity paradox, where patients with cancer and a higher BMI demonstrate better overall survival following immunotherapy or chemotherapy.
• To clarify whether (or how) BMI affects overall survival outcomes and the optimal frontline treatment choice, researchers evaluated 31,257 patients with advanced NSCLC from Japan who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 12,816) or conventional chemotherapy (n = 18,441).
• Patient outcomes were assessed according to weight categories and frontline therapy type (immune checkpoint inhibitors or conventional chemotherapy), with overall survival as the primary outcome.
• A BMI < 18.5 was considered underweight, 18.5-24.9 was considered normal weight, 25.0-29.9 was considered overweight, and ≥ 30.0 was considered obese.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the overall population, regardless of weight, patients who received chemotherapy had a higher mortality rate than those who received immunotherapy — 35.9% vs 28.0%, respectively — over a follow-up of 3 years.
• However, overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality compared with a lower BMI among patients with advanced NSCLC, regardless of whether they received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or conventional chemotherapy.
• Among patients who received immunotherapy, the risk for mortality decreased steadily as BMI increased from 15 to 24 and then increased at higher BMIs, indicating a U-shaped association.
• Immunotherapy was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy among patients with a BMI < 28; however, researchers observed no difference in overall survival between the two therapies in those with a BMI ≥ 28.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, “these results support the presence of the obesity paradox in patients with [advanced] NSCLC who underwent either therapy,” the authors concluded.

But when focused on patients in the higher BMI group, there was no overall survival benefit with the frontline immunotherapy vs the conventional chemotherapy. “Immunotherapy therapy may not necessarily be the optimal first-line therapy for patients with overweight or obesity,” the authors wrote, adding that “the use of conventional chemotherapy should also be considered.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasutaka Ihara, PharmD, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Retrospective design has inherent bias. PD-L1 status was not known, and the inclusion of Japanese population may have limited the generalizability of the findings. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University. Several authors reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical sources.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Cannabis-related disorders are associated with a more than a threefold increased risk for head and neck cancer. The study analyzed data from over four million patients, highlighting the potential carcinogenic effects of the substance.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from a globally federated health research network TriNetX, which included over 90 million men and women from 64 health care organizations in the United States.
• More than 4.1 million patients were included in the analysis, including 116,076 individuals diagnosed with cannabis-related disorder and 3.9 million without the disorder. Cannabis-related disorders involve the excessive use of cannabis with associated psychosocial symptoms, such as impaired social and/or occupational functioning.
• Patients with cannabis-related disorder were matched with those without the disorder based on demographic characteristics, alcohol-related disorders, and tobacco use.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of head and neck cancer, including subsites such as oral, oropharyngeal, nasopharyngeal, laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, and salivary gland malignancies.
• Propensity score matching and Poisson regression analysis were used to compare the incidence of head and neck cancers between the groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the researchers, patients with a cannabis-related disorder had a higher risk for any head and neck cancer (relative risk [RR], 3.49; 95% CI, 2.78-4.39) than those without the disorder.
• The risk for specific cancers was also higher in the group with cannabis-related disorders, including oral (RR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.81-3.47) and oropharyngeal malignancies (RR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.99-8.02).
• The RR for laryngeal cancer was significantly higher in the patients with a cannabis-related disorder (RR, 8.39; 95% CI, 4.72-14.90).
• The findings suggest that cannabis use disorder is associated with an increased risk for head and neck cancers, highlighting the need for further research to understand the mechanisms involved.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this cohort study, cannabis disorder diagnosis was independently associated with greater risk of subsequent development of any [head or neck cancer] as well as cancers in various subsites of the head and neck among US adults. When limited to cases of [such cancers] occurring greater than 1 year after cannabis use disorder diagnosis, many of the associations increased, demonstrating additional strength in the association,” the authors of the study wrote. 

“The association of cannabis and head and neck cancer in this study spanned 2 decades during a rapid growth in use. If this association is causative, the burden of [head and neck cancers] attributable to cannabis will continue to increase, and perhaps dramatically,” said the authors of an editorial accompanying the journal article. “Given that cannabis is now a $20 billion industry in the US alone with expanding availability, use, and popularity, this may be “déjà vu, all over again” without appropriate research to understand the potential carcinogenic and salutatory effects of cannabis. Or, in the words of Yogi Berra, “If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tyler J. Gallagher and Niels C. Kokot, MD, at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had limited information about cohort composition and length of follow-up, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. The lack of direct exposure duration, intensity, and dosage information limits the ability to analyze dose-response relationships. Potential inconsistency of diagnosis and reliance on medical record codes may introduce bias. Cannabis use is likely underreported, which could decrease the relative risks discovered. The study was further limited by the lack of information on dosage and frequency of cannabis use, as well as some controls, including alcohol and tobacco use.

DISCLOSURES:

Gallagher disclosed receiving grants from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Cannabis-related disorders are associated with a more than a threefold increased risk for head and neck cancer. The study analyzed data from over four million patients, highlighting the potential carcinogenic effects of the substance.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from a globally federated health research network TriNetX, which included over 90 million men and women from 64 health care organizations in the United States.
• More than 4.1 million patients were included in the analysis, including 116,076 individuals diagnosed with cannabis-related disorder and 3.9 million without the disorder. Cannabis-related disorders involve the excessive use of cannabis with associated psychosocial symptoms, such as impaired social and/or occupational functioning.
• Patients with cannabis-related disorder were matched with those without the disorder based on demographic characteristics, alcohol-related disorders, and tobacco use.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of head and neck cancer, including subsites such as oral, oropharyngeal, nasopharyngeal, laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, and salivary gland malignancies.
• Propensity score matching and Poisson regression analysis were used to compare the incidence of head and neck cancers between the groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the researchers, patients with a cannabis-related disorder had a higher risk for any head and neck cancer (relative risk [RR], 3.49; 95% CI, 2.78-4.39) than those without the disorder.
• The risk for specific cancers was also higher in the group with cannabis-related disorders, including oral (RR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.81-3.47) and oropharyngeal malignancies (RR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.99-8.02).
• The RR for laryngeal cancer was significantly higher in the patients with a cannabis-related disorder (RR, 8.39; 95% CI, 4.72-14.90).
• The findings suggest that cannabis use disorder is associated with an increased risk for head and neck cancers, highlighting the need for further research to understand the mechanisms involved.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this cohort study, cannabis disorder diagnosis was independently associated with greater risk of subsequent development of any [head or neck cancer] as well as cancers in various subsites of the head and neck among US adults. When limited to cases of [such cancers] occurring greater than 1 year after cannabis use disorder diagnosis, many of the associations increased, demonstrating additional strength in the association,” the authors of the study wrote. 

“The association of cannabis and head and neck cancer in this study spanned 2 decades during a rapid growth in use. If this association is causative, the burden of [head and neck cancers] attributable to cannabis will continue to increase, and perhaps dramatically,” said the authors of an editorial accompanying the journal article. “Given that cannabis is now a $20 billion industry in the US alone with expanding availability, use, and popularity, this may be “déjà vu, all over again” without appropriate research to understand the potential carcinogenic and salutatory effects of cannabis. Or, in the words of Yogi Berra, “If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tyler J. Gallagher and Niels C. Kokot, MD, at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had limited information about cohort composition and length of follow-up, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. The lack of direct exposure duration, intensity, and dosage information limits the ability to analyze dose-response relationships. Potential inconsistency of diagnosis and reliance on medical record codes may introduce bias. Cannabis use is likely underreported, which could decrease the relative risks discovered. The study was further limited by the lack of information on dosage and frequency of cannabis use, as well as some controls, including alcohol and tobacco use.

DISCLOSURES:

Gallagher disclosed receiving grants from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Cannabis-related disorders are associated with a more than a threefold increased risk for head and neck cancer. The study analyzed data from over four million patients, highlighting the potential carcinogenic effects of the substance.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from a globally federated health research network TriNetX, which included over 90 million men and women from 64 health care organizations in the United States.
• More than 4.1 million patients were included in the analysis, including 116,076 individuals diagnosed with cannabis-related disorder and 3.9 million without the disorder. Cannabis-related disorders involve the excessive use of cannabis with associated psychosocial symptoms, such as impaired social and/or occupational functioning.
• Patients with cannabis-related disorder were matched with those without the disorder based on demographic characteristics, alcohol-related disorders, and tobacco use.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of head and neck cancer, including subsites such as oral, oropharyngeal, nasopharyngeal, laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, and salivary gland malignancies.
• Propensity score matching and Poisson regression analysis were used to compare the incidence of head and neck cancers between the groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the researchers, patients with a cannabis-related disorder had a higher risk for any head and neck cancer (relative risk [RR], 3.49; 95% CI, 2.78-4.39) than those without the disorder.
• The risk for specific cancers was also higher in the group with cannabis-related disorders, including oral (RR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.81-3.47) and oropharyngeal malignancies (RR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.99-8.02).
• The RR for laryngeal cancer was significantly higher in the patients with a cannabis-related disorder (RR, 8.39; 95% CI, 4.72-14.90).
• The findings suggest that cannabis use disorder is associated with an increased risk for head and neck cancers, highlighting the need for further research to understand the mechanisms involved.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this cohort study, cannabis disorder diagnosis was independently associated with greater risk of subsequent development of any [head or neck cancer] as well as cancers in various subsites of the head and neck among US adults. When limited to cases of [such cancers] occurring greater than 1 year after cannabis use disorder diagnosis, many of the associations increased, demonstrating additional strength in the association,” the authors of the study wrote. 

“The association of cannabis and head and neck cancer in this study spanned 2 decades during a rapid growth in use. If this association is causative, the burden of [head and neck cancers] attributable to cannabis will continue to increase, and perhaps dramatically,” said the authors of an editorial accompanying the journal article. “Given that cannabis is now a $20 billion industry in the US alone with expanding availability, use, and popularity, this may be “déjà vu, all over again” without appropriate research to understand the potential carcinogenic and salutatory effects of cannabis. Or, in the words of Yogi Berra, “If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tyler J. Gallagher and Niels C. Kokot, MD, at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had limited information about cohort composition and length of follow-up, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. The lack of direct exposure duration, intensity, and dosage information limits the ability to analyze dose-response relationships. Potential inconsistency of diagnosis and reliance on medical record codes may introduce bias. Cannabis use is likely underreported, which could decrease the relative risks discovered. The study was further limited by the lack of information on dosage and frequency of cannabis use, as well as some controls, including alcohol and tobacco use.

DISCLOSURES:

Gallagher disclosed receiving grants from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation can prevent upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and appears to have no effect on mortality, according to a randomized trial and a systematic review led by researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who need mechanical ventilation typically are given a PPI, such as pantoprazole, to prevent upper GI bleeding caused by stress-induced stomach ulcers, but some evidence suggested that their use might increase the risk for pneumonia and death in the most severely ill patients.

As a result, recent guidelines have issued only weak recommendations for stress ulcer prophylaxis, especially with PPIs, in critically ill patients at a high risk for bleeding, Deborah Cook, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, and colleagues noted.

Significantly Lower Bleeding Risk

The REVISE trial, conducted in eight countries, compared pantoprazole 40 mg daily with placebo in critically ill adults on mechanical ventilation.

The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper GI bleeding in the ICU at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days.

A total of 4821 patients in 68 ICUs were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group or placebo group.

Clinically important upper GI bleeding occurred in 25 patients (1%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo. At 90 days, 696 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group died, as did 734 (30.9%) in the placebo group.

No significant differences were found on key secondary outcomes, including ventilator-associated pneumonia and Clostridioides difficile infection in the hospital.

The authors concluded that pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk for clinically important upper GI bleeding than placebo, and it had no significant effect on mortality.
 

Disease Severity as a Possible Factor

The systematic review included 12 randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs with placebo or no prophylaxis for stress ulcers in a total of 9533 critically ill adults. The researchers performed meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence. They also conducted a subgroup analysis combining within-trial subgroup data from the two largest trials.

They found that PPIs were associated with a reduced incidence of clinically important upper GI bleeding (relative risk [RR], 0.51, with high certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on mortality (RR, 0.99, with low-certainty evidence).

However, the within-trial subgroup analysis with intermediate credibility suggested that the effect of PPIs on mortality may differ based on disease severity. The results also raised the possibility that PPI use may decrease 90-day mortality in less severely ill patients (RR, 0.89) and increase mortality in more severely ill patients (RR, 1.08). The mechanisms behind this possible signal are likely multifactorial, the authors noted.

In addition, the review found that PPIs may have no effect on pneumonia, duration of ICU stay, or duration of hospital stay, and little or no effect on C difficile infection or duration of mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence).

“Physicians, nurses, and pharmacists working in the ICU setting will use this information in practice right away, and the trial results and the updated meta-analysis will be incorporated into international practice guidelines,” Dr. Cook said.

Both studies had limitations. The REVISE trial did not include patient-reported disability outcomes, and the results may not be generalizable to patients with unassisted breathing. The systematic review included studies with diverse definitions of bleeding and pneumonia, and with mortality reported at different milestones, without considering competing risk analyses. Patient-important GI bleeding was available in only one trial. Other potential side effects of PPIs, such as infection with multidrug-resistant organisms, were not reported.

In an editorial accompanying both studies, Samuel M. Brown, MD, a pulmonologist and vice president of research at Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, said that the REVISE trial was “well designed and executed, with generalizable eligibility criteria and excellent experimental separation.” He said the researchers had shown that PPIs “slightly but significantly” decrease the risk of important GI bleeding and have a “decent chance” of slightly decreasing mortality in less severely ill patients during mechanical ventilation. At the same time, he noted, PPIs “do not decrease — and may slightly increase — mortality” in severely ill patients.

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

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation can prevent upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and appears to have no effect on mortality, according to a randomized trial and a systematic review led by researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who need mechanical ventilation typically are given a PPI, such as pantoprazole, to prevent upper GI bleeding caused by stress-induced stomach ulcers, but some evidence suggested that their use might increase the risk for pneumonia and death in the most severely ill patients.

As a result, recent guidelines have issued only weak recommendations for stress ulcer prophylaxis, especially with PPIs, in critically ill patients at a high risk for bleeding, Deborah Cook, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, and colleagues noted.

Significantly Lower Bleeding Risk

The REVISE trial, conducted in eight countries, compared pantoprazole 40 mg daily with placebo in critically ill adults on mechanical ventilation.

The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper GI bleeding in the ICU at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days.

A total of 4821 patients in 68 ICUs were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group or placebo group.

Clinically important upper GI bleeding occurred in 25 patients (1%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo. At 90 days, 696 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group died, as did 734 (30.9%) in the placebo group.

No significant differences were found on key secondary outcomes, including ventilator-associated pneumonia and Clostridioides difficile infection in the hospital.

The authors concluded that pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk for clinically important upper GI bleeding than placebo, and it had no significant effect on mortality.
 

Disease Severity as a Possible Factor

The systematic review included 12 randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs with placebo or no prophylaxis for stress ulcers in a total of 9533 critically ill adults. The researchers performed meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence. They also conducted a subgroup analysis combining within-trial subgroup data from the two largest trials.

They found that PPIs were associated with a reduced incidence of clinically important upper GI bleeding (relative risk [RR], 0.51, with high certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on mortality (RR, 0.99, with low-certainty evidence).

However, the within-trial subgroup analysis with intermediate credibility suggested that the effect of PPIs on mortality may differ based on disease severity. The results also raised the possibility that PPI use may decrease 90-day mortality in less severely ill patients (RR, 0.89) and increase mortality in more severely ill patients (RR, 1.08). The mechanisms behind this possible signal are likely multifactorial, the authors noted.

In addition, the review found that PPIs may have no effect on pneumonia, duration of ICU stay, or duration of hospital stay, and little or no effect on C difficile infection or duration of mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence).

“Physicians, nurses, and pharmacists working in the ICU setting will use this information in practice right away, and the trial results and the updated meta-analysis will be incorporated into international practice guidelines,” Dr. Cook said.

Both studies had limitations. The REVISE trial did not include patient-reported disability outcomes, and the results may not be generalizable to patients with unassisted breathing. The systematic review included studies with diverse definitions of bleeding and pneumonia, and with mortality reported at different milestones, without considering competing risk analyses. Patient-important GI bleeding was available in only one trial. Other potential side effects of PPIs, such as infection with multidrug-resistant organisms, were not reported.

In an editorial accompanying both studies, Samuel M. Brown, MD, a pulmonologist and vice president of research at Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, said that the REVISE trial was “well designed and executed, with generalizable eligibility criteria and excellent experimental separation.” He said the researchers had shown that PPIs “slightly but significantly” decrease the risk of important GI bleeding and have a “decent chance” of slightly decreasing mortality in less severely ill patients during mechanical ventilation. At the same time, he noted, PPIs “do not decrease — and may slightly increase — mortality” in severely ill patients.

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

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation can prevent upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and appears to have no effect on mortality, according to a randomized trial and a systematic review led by researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who need mechanical ventilation typically are given a PPI, such as pantoprazole, to prevent upper GI bleeding caused by stress-induced stomach ulcers, but some evidence suggested that their use might increase the risk for pneumonia and death in the most severely ill patients.

As a result, recent guidelines have issued only weak recommendations for stress ulcer prophylaxis, especially with PPIs, in critically ill patients at a high risk for bleeding, Deborah Cook, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, and colleagues noted.

Significantly Lower Bleeding Risk

The REVISE trial, conducted in eight countries, compared pantoprazole 40 mg daily with placebo in critically ill adults on mechanical ventilation.

The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper GI bleeding in the ICU at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days.

A total of 4821 patients in 68 ICUs were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group or placebo group.

Clinically important upper GI bleeding occurred in 25 patients (1%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo. At 90 days, 696 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group died, as did 734 (30.9%) in the placebo group.

No significant differences were found on key secondary outcomes, including ventilator-associated pneumonia and Clostridioides difficile infection in the hospital.

The authors concluded that pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk for clinically important upper GI bleeding than placebo, and it had no significant effect on mortality.
 

Disease Severity as a Possible Factor

The systematic review included 12 randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs with placebo or no prophylaxis for stress ulcers in a total of 9533 critically ill adults. The researchers performed meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence. They also conducted a subgroup analysis combining within-trial subgroup data from the two largest trials.

They found that PPIs were associated with a reduced incidence of clinically important upper GI bleeding (relative risk [RR], 0.51, with high certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on mortality (RR, 0.99, with low-certainty evidence).

However, the within-trial subgroup analysis with intermediate credibility suggested that the effect of PPIs on mortality may differ based on disease severity. The results also raised the possibility that PPI use may decrease 90-day mortality in less severely ill patients (RR, 0.89) and increase mortality in more severely ill patients (RR, 1.08). The mechanisms behind this possible signal are likely multifactorial, the authors noted.

In addition, the review found that PPIs may have no effect on pneumonia, duration of ICU stay, or duration of hospital stay, and little or no effect on C difficile infection or duration of mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence).

“Physicians, nurses, and pharmacists working in the ICU setting will use this information in practice right away, and the trial results and the updated meta-analysis will be incorporated into international practice guidelines,” Dr. Cook said.

Both studies had limitations. The REVISE trial did not include patient-reported disability outcomes, and the results may not be generalizable to patients with unassisted breathing. The systematic review included studies with diverse definitions of bleeding and pneumonia, and with mortality reported at different milestones, without considering competing risk analyses. Patient-important GI bleeding was available in only one trial. Other potential side effects of PPIs, such as infection with multidrug-resistant organisms, were not reported.

In an editorial accompanying both studies, Samuel M. Brown, MD, a pulmonologist and vice president of research at Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, said that the REVISE trial was “well designed and executed, with generalizable eligibility criteria and excellent experimental separation.” He said the researchers had shown that PPIs “slightly but significantly” decrease the risk of important GI bleeding and have a “decent chance” of slightly decreasing mortality in less severely ill patients during mechanical ventilation. At the same time, he noted, PPIs “do not decrease — and may slightly increase — mortality” in severely ill patients.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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