CHEST Physician

The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.

LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.

During a plenary session at the 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer, experts addressed the known and suspected causes of LCINS, including fallout from climate change, vaping, cannabis use, and effects of airborne carcinogen exposures arising from military conflict. These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.

Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
 

Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.

Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.

In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.

“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
 

How Clinicians Can Help

Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.

“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.

“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.

In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.

“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”

“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.

LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.

During a plenary session at the 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer, experts addressed the known and suspected causes of LCINS, including fallout from climate change, vaping, cannabis use, and effects of airborne carcinogen exposures arising from military conflict. These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.

Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
 

Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.

Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.

In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.

“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
 

How Clinicians Can Help

Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.

“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.

“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.

In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.

“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”

“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasing, and experts think climate change may be driving the uptick.

LCINS differs histologically and epidemiologically from smoking-related cancers, occurring almost always as adenocarcinomas and mostly affecting women and individuals of Asian ancestry, according to a study published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology in January 2024. Cases of LCINS are estimated to be the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.

During a plenary session at the 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer, experts addressed the known and suspected causes of LCINS, including fallout from climate change, vaping, cannabis use, and effects of airborne carcinogen exposures arising from military conflict. These potential culprits are varied and sometimes interrelated — and they underscore the need for continued emphasis on environmental hazards, the panelists agreed.

Focusing on climate change — and taking action at the individual level — is a good place to start, said Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, scientific director of health services research in the Surveillance and Health Equity Science Department of the American Cancer Society.
 

Long-Term Exposure to Wildfires Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

Climate change is associated with climate-driven disasters such as more intense hurricanes and more frequent wildfires that can expose populations to environmental carcinogens, Nogueira explained.

Such weather events disrupt the care of patients with cancer and lead to poorer outcomes, according to her own research. They also contribute to the rising incidence of LCINS, she said.

In a population-based study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, long-term exposure to wildfires was associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and brain tumors. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 50 km of their residential locations in the prior decade has a 4.9% relatively higher incidence of lung cancer and a 10% relatively higher incidence of brain tumors.

“These findings are relevant on a global scale given the anticipated effects of climate change on wildfire frequency and severity,” the authors concluded, noting the study limitations and the need for further research.
 

How Clinicians Can Help

Nogueira urged attendees to take action to help improve healthcare outcomes.

“Let’s not forget that the healthcare system is one of the most emission-intensive industries in the world. Emissions from the US healthcare system exceed emission from the entire UK, and we can be doing much better.

“There is something for each one of us here today to do: We can champion environmentally responsible efforts at our institutions, we can engage with disaster preparedness and response ... and we can document ongoing suffering to increase awareness and incentivize action,” she said.

In a commentary published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Nogueira and her colleagues further addressed the links between climate change and cancer and listed various sources of greenhouse gas emissions and proposed interventions, including those associated with the healthcare industry.

“If you look at this list and say ‘No way — there is no chance my institution will do any of that,’ let me ask you something: Are you allowed to smoke on campus? How do you think that happened? How do you think that started?” she said, invoking Archimedes’ famous quote, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.”

“You most certainly have the power to make a difference,” Nogueira said. “So recognize where your points of influence are – move your lever, move the world.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding a second checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy improves outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations, according to the authors of a new paper.

These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.

Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
 

What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?

The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.

These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
 

What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?

The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.

“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.

As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.

This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.

Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
 

How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?

Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.

“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”

Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
 

What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.

“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.

Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.

Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.

“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
 

Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”

This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.

Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.

“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”

The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.

“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”

On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”

Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.

“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”

Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.

“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”

Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.

“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding a second checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy improves outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations, according to the authors of a new paper.

These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.

Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
 

What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?

The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.

These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
 

What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?

The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.

“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.

As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.

This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.

Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
 

How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?

Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.

“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”

Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
 

What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.

“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.

Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.

Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.

“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
 

Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”

This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.

Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.

“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”

The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.

“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”

On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”

Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.

“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”

Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.

“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”

Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.

“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding a second checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy improves outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations, according to the authors of a new paper.

These findings, drawn from a post hoc analysis of phase 3 data, are backed up by cell line and mouse data revealing clear mechanisms of efficacy, making the collective evidence compelling enough to reshape clinical practice, reported lead author Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Although STK11 and KEAP1 mutations are associated with limited benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] inhibition, the association between these mutations and benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is not yet as well established,” the investigators wrote in Nature.

Skoulidis and colleagues conducted the subgroup analysis of POSEIDON trial data and characterized underlying biologic mechanisms using mouse models to address this knowledge gap.
 

What Were the Original Findings of POSEIDON?

The POSEIDON trial involved 1013 patients with metastatic NSCLC. Treatment arms included standard chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab, and chemotherapy plus durvalumab and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor tremelimumab.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) but not median overall survival (OS), while dual checkpoint blockade boosted both PFS and OS.

These findings provided support for the dual approach in the first-line setting, but not preferentially so. Experts called for more long-term data, questioned the survival benefit in terms of the increased toxicity, and noted the lack of biomarkers for patient selection.
 

What Did Post Hoc Analysis Highlight About POSEIDON?

The present analysis aimed to validate two actionable biomarkers.

“We and others have previously observed that alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 can promote an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and together might be responsible for half or more of the primary resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition among patients with nsNSCLC when given as monotherapy,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

From the original 1013 patients, 612 had non-squamous NSCLC and were evaluable for mutations. Among them, 87 had STK11 mutations and 37 had KEAP1 mutations.

As anticipated, patients in the STK11/KEAP1 subgroup saw little to no benefit from adding durvalumab to chemotherapy, but adding tremelimumab on top yielded notable improvement.

This was first observed in the objective response rate, which was 42.9% with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy vs 30.2% with single checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy and 28% for chemotherapy alone. Durations of response improved in kind.

Survival outcomes also trended toward improvement in the dual checkpoint arm, which had a median OS of 15.8 months vs 7.3 months for durvalumab plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.04) and 10.5 months for chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87). PFS showed similar trends.
 

How Do Findings Relate to Previous NSCLC Subgroup Research?

Skoulidis and colleagues noted that their findings align with those of the CheckMate 9LA trial, which showed that patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations had better outcomes with dual checkpoint blockade plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

“These data support the hypothesis that CTLA-4 inhibition can mitigate the resistance to chemotherapy plus PD-(L)1 inhibition observed in patients who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations and suggest that this group of patients derives greater benefit from CTLA-4 inhibition than do patients who lack either alteration,” Skoulidis and colleagues wrote.

Grace Dy, MD, professor of oncology in the Department of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, noted that in the present analysis, PD-L1 expression status did not predict outcomes; however, patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations typically have low or negative PD-L1 expression, which has been linked with better responses to CTLA-4 inhibition in multiple trials.

“In the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies, we have seen that patients with PD-L1–negative tumors appear to derive greater and more durable long-term overall survival benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade compared to patients receiving anti-PD1-based therapy alone,” Dy said in a written comment. “While we take the necessary caveats on cross-trial comparisons, the same survival trend favoring CTLA-4-based immune checkpoint blockade is seen compared to the tail of the survival curves observed in PD-L1–negative patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE studies (KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407).”

Detecting improvements in survival within PD-L1 patients “may not be readily apparent until later when looking at the tail of the survival curves,” she added.
 

What Mechanisms of Action Explain Relative Benefits of Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

To elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, Skoulidis and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving cell lines and mouse models of Stk11- and Keap1-deficient NSCLC.

“For us, it was critical to provide mechanistic support for the observed clinical benefit in POSEIDON, especially since this is based on a retrospective subgroup analysis,” Skoulidis said in an interview.

Their efforts revealed a strong link between the mutations and resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition.

Inactivation of Stk11 and Keap1 promoted an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, marked by increased infiltration of suppressive myeloid cells and a reduction in CD8+ effector T cells. This immune imbalance contributed to evasion of immune destruction and limited the efficacy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Dual checkpoint blockade reprogrammed the immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells, specifically the Th1 subtype, while inducing tumoricidal changes in myeloid cells. Consequently, antitumor responses improved, resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival, compared with PD-1 monotherapy.

“Addition of CTLA-4 [inhibition] turns the two cardinal components of the suppressive microenvironment of these tumors on its head, and that’s why we believe we are observing this clinical benefit,” Skoulidis said. “This is not a mere association…but also based on very solid mechanistic data across a multitude of different models.”
 

Are Data Sufficient to Shift to First-Line Dual Checkpoint Blockade?

“Our work strengthens the available evidence that this regimen — and chemoimmunotherapy more broadly, with dual immune checkpoint blockade — constitutes a preferred approach for these patients,” Skoulidis said. “I personally, and I think physicians within MD Anderson, as well as a lot of physicians that I talk to, are already using — based on these data — the POSEIDON regimen, as well as, more broadly, chemoimmunotherapy with dual immune checkpoint for patients with these alterations.”

This view, however, remains contested by some oncologists.

Lei Deng, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, called the new data “intriguing” and “hypothesis-generating,” but stopped short of supporting preferential first-line use.

“This study is a post hoc analysis, so you don’t have a lot of patients,” Deng said. “It is still not strong enough or definitive enough to make it standard of care to use dual checkpoint blockade for [patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations].”

The cell line and mouse data help explain biologic mechanisms of efficacy, he said, but these findings do not obviate toxicity concerns.

“You are adding one more agent, and this agent is more toxic than single checkpoint blockade,” Deng said. “So, if you weigh the risk, it is known, [but] the benefit is suggestive. I am not sure if the risk-benefit ratio would argue for routine implementation of this regimen yet.”

On the other hand, he noted, the combination is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved in this setting, so “it is not wrong to use it.”

Jyoti Malhotra, MD, director of thoracic medical oncology at City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, had a similar take.

“The clinical data presented so far is exploratory and limited by the small sample size,” Malhotra said in a written comment. “Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial (TRITON) is awaited before dual checkpoint blockade becomes the standard of care in this setting.”

Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of the Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, was also unequivocal when asked if dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy should be considered the preferred first-line treatment option in patients with STK11 and/or KEAP1 mutations.

“No,” he said in a written comment. “The data and the hypothesis are very strong, but it is all based on retrospective clinical data, cell line data, and mouse models. We need a randomized study to test the hypothesis.”

Incidentally, Borghaei is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial. He shared this potential conflict of interest before praising Skoulidis and colleagues for their efforts, noting that the present findings underscore the broader importance of widespread tumor profiling and access to resultant data.

“This is a beautiful story that has developed over the last few years based on the research by the group from MD Anderson who has reported the current Nature article,” he said. “This highlights the possible utility of collecting sequencing data on [all] patients’ tumors. These sorts of understandings and new ideas could arise only if there is access to this information.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, the National Cancer Institute, the Gunnigar Fund, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and others. Deng disclosed relationships with Merck, BridgeBio, MJH Life Sciences, and others. Dy disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Meru, and others. Malhotra has previously served as a consultant for AstraZeneca. Borghaei has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca and is on the steering committee for the TRITON trial.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This October, millions of Americans missed out on two of the most spectacular shows in the universe: the northern lights and a rare comet. Even if you were aware of them, light pollution made them difficult to see, unless you went to a dark area and let your eyes adjust.

It’s not getting any easier — the night sky over North America has been growing brighter by about 10% per year since 2011. More and more research is linking all that light pollution to a surprising range of health consequences: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and even low sperm quality, though the reasons for these troubling associations are not always clear. 

“We’ve lost the contrast between light and dark, and we are confusing our physiology on a regular basis,” said John Hanifin, PhD, associate director of Thomas Jefferson University’s Light Research Program. 

Our own galaxy is invisible to nearly 80% of people in North America. In 1994, an earthquake-triggered blackout in Los Angeles led to calls to the Griffith Observatory from people wondering about that hazy blob of light in the night sky. It was the Milky Way.

Glaring headlights, illuminated buildings, blazing billboards, and streetlights fill our urban skies with a glow that even affects rural residents. Inside, since the invention of the lightbulb, we’ve kept our homes bright at night. Now, we’ve also added blue light-emitting devices — smartphones, television screens, tablets — which have been linked to sleep problems.

But outdoor light may matter for our health, too. “Every photon counts,” Hanifin said. 
 

Bright Lights, Big Problems

For one 2024 study researchers used satellite data to measure light pollution at residential addresses of over 13,000 people. They found that those who lived in places with the brightest skies at night had a 31% higher risk of high blood pressure. Another study out of Hong Kong showed a 29% higher risk of death from coronary heart disease. And yet another found a 17%higher risk of cerebrovascular disease, such as strokes or brain aneurysms. 

Of course, urban areas also have air pollution, noise, and a lack of greenery. So, for some studies, scientists controlled for these factors, and the correlation remained strong (although air pollution with fine particulate matter appeared to be worse for heart health than outdoor light). 

Research has found links between the nighttime glow outside and other diseases:

Breast cancer. “It’s a very strong correlation,” said Randy Nelson, PhD, a neuroscientist at West Virginia University. A study of over 100,000 teachers in California revealed that women living in areas with the most light pollution had a 12%higher risk. That effect is comparable to increasing your intake of ultra-processed foods by 10%. 

Alzheimer’s disease. In a study published this fall, outdoor light at night was more strongly linked to the disease than even alcohol misuse or obesity.

Diabetes. In one recent study, people living in the most illuminated areas had a 28% higher risk of diabetes than those residing in much darker places. In a country like China, scientists concluded that 9 million cases of diabetes could be linked to light pollution. 
 

What Happens in Your Body When You’re Exposed to Light at Night

Research has revealed that light at night (indoors or out) disrupts circadian clocks, increases inflammation, affects cell division, and suppresses melatonin, the “hormone of darkness.” “Darkness is very important,” Hanifin said. When he and his colleagues decades ago started studying the effects of light on human physiology, “people thought we were borderline crazy,” he said.

Nighttime illumination affects the health and behavior of species as diverse as Siberian hamsters, zebra finches, mice, crickets, and mosquitoes. Like most creatures on Earth, humans have internal clocks that are synced to the 24-hour cycle of day and night. The master clock is in your hypothalamus, a diamond-shaped part of the brain, but every cell in your body has its own clock, too. Many physiological processes run on circadian rhythms (a term derived from a Latin phrase meaning “about a day”), from sleep-wake cycle to hormone secretion, as well as processes involved in cancer progression, such as cell division.

“There are special photoreceptors in the eye that don’t deal with visual information. They just send light information,” Nelson said. “If you get light at the wrong time, you’re resetting the clocks.” 

This internal clock “prepares the body for various recurrent challenges, such as eating,” said Christian Benedict, PhD, a sleep researcher at Uppsala University, Sweden. “Light exposure [at night] can mess up this very important system.” This could mean, for instance, that your insulin is released at the wrong time, Benedict said, causing “a jet lag-ish condition that will then impair the ability to handle blood sugar.” Animal studies confirm that exposure to light at night can reduce glucose tolerance and alter insulin secretion – potential pathways to diabetes.

The hormone melatonin, produced when it’s dark by the pineal gland in the brain, is a key player in this modern struggle. Melatonin helps you sleep, synchronizes the body’s circadian rhythms, protects neurons from damage, regulates the immune system, and fights inflammation. But even a sliver of light at night can suppress its secretion. Less than 30 lux of light, about the level of a pedestrian street at night, can slash melatonin by half. 

When lab animals are exposed to nighttime light, they “show enormous neuroinflammation” — that is, inflammation of nervous tissue, Nelson said. In one experiment on humans, those who slept immersed in weak light had higher levels of C-reactive protein in their blood, a marker of inflammation.

Low melatonin has also been linked to cancer. It “allows the metabolic machinery of the cancer cells to be active,” Hanifin said. One of melatonin’s effects is stimulation of natural killer cells, which can recognize and destroy cancer cells. What’s more, when melatonin plunges, estrogen may go up, which could explain the link between light at night and breast cancer (estrogen fuels tumor growth in breast cancers). 

Researchers concede that satellite data might be too coarse to estimate how much light people are actually exposed to while they sleep. Plus, many of us are staring at bright screens. “But the studies keep coming,” Nelson said, suggesting that outdoor light pollution does have an impact. 

When researchers put wrist-worn light sensors on over 80,000 British people, they found that the more light the device registered between half-past midnight and 6 a.m., the more its wearer was at risk of having diabetes several years down the road — no matter how long they’ve actually slept. This, according to the study’s authors, supports the findings of satellite data.

A similar study that used actigraphy with built-in light sensors, measuring whether people had been sleeping in complete darkness for at least five hours, found that light pollution upped the risk of heart disease by 74%.
 

What Can You Do About This?

Not everyone’s melatonin is affected by nighttime light to the same degree. “Some people are very much sensitive to very dim light, whereas others are not as sensitive and need far, far more light stimulation [to impact melatonin],” Benedict said. In one study, some volunteers needed 350 lux to lower their melatonin by half. For such people, flipping on the light in the bathroom at night wouldn’t matter; for others, though, a mere 6 lux was already as harmful – which is darker than twilight. 

You can protect yourself by keeping your bedroom lights off and your screens stashed away, but avoiding outdoor light pollution may be harder. You can invest in high-quality blackout curtains, of course, although some light may still seep inside. You can plant trees in front of your windows, reorient any motion-detector lights, and even petition your local government to reduce over-illumination of buildings and to choose better streetlights. You can support organizations, such as the International Dark-Sky Association, that work to preserve darkness.

Last but not least, you might want to change your habits. If you live in a particularly light-polluted area, such as the District of Columbia, America’s top place for urban blaze, you might reconsider late-night walks or drives around the neighborhood. Instead, Hanifin said, read a book in bed, while keeping the light “as dim as you can.” It’s “a much better idea versus being outside in midtown Manhattan,” he said. According to recent recommendations published by Hanifin and his colleagues, when you sleep, there should be no more than 1 lux of illumination at the level of your eyes — about as much as you’d get from having a lit candle 1 meter away. 

And if we manage to preserve outdoor darkness, and the stars reappear (including the breathtaking Milky Way), we could reap more benefits — some research suggests that stargazing can elicit positive emotions, a sense of personal growth, and “a variety of transcendent thoughts and experiences.” 
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

This October, millions of Americans missed out on two of the most spectacular shows in the universe: the northern lights and a rare comet. Even if you were aware of them, light pollution made them difficult to see, unless you went to a dark area and let your eyes adjust.

It’s not getting any easier — the night sky over North America has been growing brighter by about 10% per year since 2011. More and more research is linking all that light pollution to a surprising range of health consequences: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and even low sperm quality, though the reasons for these troubling associations are not always clear. 

“We’ve lost the contrast between light and dark, and we are confusing our physiology on a regular basis,” said John Hanifin, PhD, associate director of Thomas Jefferson University’s Light Research Program. 

Our own galaxy is invisible to nearly 80% of people in North America. In 1994, an earthquake-triggered blackout in Los Angeles led to calls to the Griffith Observatory from people wondering about that hazy blob of light in the night sky. It was the Milky Way.

Glaring headlights, illuminated buildings, blazing billboards, and streetlights fill our urban skies with a glow that even affects rural residents. Inside, since the invention of the lightbulb, we’ve kept our homes bright at night. Now, we’ve also added blue light-emitting devices — smartphones, television screens, tablets — which have been linked to sleep problems.

But outdoor light may matter for our health, too. “Every photon counts,” Hanifin said. 
 

Bright Lights, Big Problems

For one 2024 study researchers used satellite data to measure light pollution at residential addresses of over 13,000 people. They found that those who lived in places with the brightest skies at night had a 31% higher risk of high blood pressure. Another study out of Hong Kong showed a 29% higher risk of death from coronary heart disease. And yet another found a 17%higher risk of cerebrovascular disease, such as strokes or brain aneurysms. 

Of course, urban areas also have air pollution, noise, and a lack of greenery. So, for some studies, scientists controlled for these factors, and the correlation remained strong (although air pollution with fine particulate matter appeared to be worse for heart health than outdoor light). 

Research has found links between the nighttime glow outside and other diseases:

Breast cancer. “It’s a very strong correlation,” said Randy Nelson, PhD, a neuroscientist at West Virginia University. A study of over 100,000 teachers in California revealed that women living in areas with the most light pollution had a 12%higher risk. That effect is comparable to increasing your intake of ultra-processed foods by 10%. 

Alzheimer’s disease. In a study published this fall, outdoor light at night was more strongly linked to the disease than even alcohol misuse or obesity.

Diabetes. In one recent study, people living in the most illuminated areas had a 28% higher risk of diabetes than those residing in much darker places. In a country like China, scientists concluded that 9 million cases of diabetes could be linked to light pollution. 
 

What Happens in Your Body When You’re Exposed to Light at Night

Research has revealed that light at night (indoors or out) disrupts circadian clocks, increases inflammation, affects cell division, and suppresses melatonin, the “hormone of darkness.” “Darkness is very important,” Hanifin said. When he and his colleagues decades ago started studying the effects of light on human physiology, “people thought we were borderline crazy,” he said.

Nighttime illumination affects the health and behavior of species as diverse as Siberian hamsters, zebra finches, mice, crickets, and mosquitoes. Like most creatures on Earth, humans have internal clocks that are synced to the 24-hour cycle of day and night. The master clock is in your hypothalamus, a diamond-shaped part of the brain, but every cell in your body has its own clock, too. Many physiological processes run on circadian rhythms (a term derived from a Latin phrase meaning “about a day”), from sleep-wake cycle to hormone secretion, as well as processes involved in cancer progression, such as cell division.

“There are special photoreceptors in the eye that don’t deal with visual information. They just send light information,” Nelson said. “If you get light at the wrong time, you’re resetting the clocks.” 

This internal clock “prepares the body for various recurrent challenges, such as eating,” said Christian Benedict, PhD, a sleep researcher at Uppsala University, Sweden. “Light exposure [at night] can mess up this very important system.” This could mean, for instance, that your insulin is released at the wrong time, Benedict said, causing “a jet lag-ish condition that will then impair the ability to handle blood sugar.” Animal studies confirm that exposure to light at night can reduce glucose tolerance and alter insulin secretion – potential pathways to diabetes.

The hormone melatonin, produced when it’s dark by the pineal gland in the brain, is a key player in this modern struggle. Melatonin helps you sleep, synchronizes the body’s circadian rhythms, protects neurons from damage, regulates the immune system, and fights inflammation. But even a sliver of light at night can suppress its secretion. Less than 30 lux of light, about the level of a pedestrian street at night, can slash melatonin by half. 

When lab animals are exposed to nighttime light, they “show enormous neuroinflammation” — that is, inflammation of nervous tissue, Nelson said. In one experiment on humans, those who slept immersed in weak light had higher levels of C-reactive protein in their blood, a marker of inflammation.

Low melatonin has also been linked to cancer. It “allows the metabolic machinery of the cancer cells to be active,” Hanifin said. One of melatonin’s effects is stimulation of natural killer cells, which can recognize and destroy cancer cells. What’s more, when melatonin plunges, estrogen may go up, which could explain the link between light at night and breast cancer (estrogen fuels tumor growth in breast cancers). 

Researchers concede that satellite data might be too coarse to estimate how much light people are actually exposed to while they sleep. Plus, many of us are staring at bright screens. “But the studies keep coming,” Nelson said, suggesting that outdoor light pollution does have an impact. 

When researchers put wrist-worn light sensors on over 80,000 British people, they found that the more light the device registered between half-past midnight and 6 a.m., the more its wearer was at risk of having diabetes several years down the road — no matter how long they’ve actually slept. This, according to the study’s authors, supports the findings of satellite data.

A similar study that used actigraphy with built-in light sensors, measuring whether people had been sleeping in complete darkness for at least five hours, found that light pollution upped the risk of heart disease by 74%.
 

What Can You Do About This?

Not everyone’s melatonin is affected by nighttime light to the same degree. “Some people are very much sensitive to very dim light, whereas others are not as sensitive and need far, far more light stimulation [to impact melatonin],” Benedict said. In one study, some volunteers needed 350 lux to lower their melatonin by half. For such people, flipping on the light in the bathroom at night wouldn’t matter; for others, though, a mere 6 lux was already as harmful – which is darker than twilight. 

You can protect yourself by keeping your bedroom lights off and your screens stashed away, but avoiding outdoor light pollution may be harder. You can invest in high-quality blackout curtains, of course, although some light may still seep inside. You can plant trees in front of your windows, reorient any motion-detector lights, and even petition your local government to reduce over-illumination of buildings and to choose better streetlights. You can support organizations, such as the International Dark-Sky Association, that work to preserve darkness.

Last but not least, you might want to change your habits. If you live in a particularly light-polluted area, such as the District of Columbia, America’s top place for urban blaze, you might reconsider late-night walks or drives around the neighborhood. Instead, Hanifin said, read a book in bed, while keeping the light “as dim as you can.” It’s “a much better idea versus being outside in midtown Manhattan,” he said. According to recent recommendations published by Hanifin and his colleagues, when you sleep, there should be no more than 1 lux of illumination at the level of your eyes — about as much as you’d get from having a lit candle 1 meter away. 

And if we manage to preserve outdoor darkness, and the stars reappear (including the breathtaking Milky Way), we could reap more benefits — some research suggests that stargazing can elicit positive emotions, a sense of personal growth, and “a variety of transcendent thoughts and experiences.” 
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

This October, millions of Americans missed out on two of the most spectacular shows in the universe: the northern lights and a rare comet. Even if you were aware of them, light pollution made them difficult to see, unless you went to a dark area and let your eyes adjust.

It’s not getting any easier — the night sky over North America has been growing brighter by about 10% per year since 2011. More and more research is linking all that light pollution to a surprising range of health consequences: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and even low sperm quality, though the reasons for these troubling associations are not always clear. 

“We’ve lost the contrast between light and dark, and we are confusing our physiology on a regular basis,” said John Hanifin, PhD, associate director of Thomas Jefferson University’s Light Research Program. 

Our own galaxy is invisible to nearly 80% of people in North America. In 1994, an earthquake-triggered blackout in Los Angeles led to calls to the Griffith Observatory from people wondering about that hazy blob of light in the night sky. It was the Milky Way.

Glaring headlights, illuminated buildings, blazing billboards, and streetlights fill our urban skies with a glow that even affects rural residents. Inside, since the invention of the lightbulb, we’ve kept our homes bright at night. Now, we’ve also added blue light-emitting devices — smartphones, television screens, tablets — which have been linked to sleep problems.

But outdoor light may matter for our health, too. “Every photon counts,” Hanifin said. 
 

Bright Lights, Big Problems

For one 2024 study researchers used satellite data to measure light pollution at residential addresses of over 13,000 people. They found that those who lived in places with the brightest skies at night had a 31% higher risk of high blood pressure. Another study out of Hong Kong showed a 29% higher risk of death from coronary heart disease. And yet another found a 17%higher risk of cerebrovascular disease, such as strokes or brain aneurysms. 

Of course, urban areas also have air pollution, noise, and a lack of greenery. So, for some studies, scientists controlled for these factors, and the correlation remained strong (although air pollution with fine particulate matter appeared to be worse for heart health than outdoor light). 

Research has found links between the nighttime glow outside and other diseases:

Breast cancer. “It’s a very strong correlation,” said Randy Nelson, PhD, a neuroscientist at West Virginia University. A study of over 100,000 teachers in California revealed that women living in areas with the most light pollution had a 12%higher risk. That effect is comparable to increasing your intake of ultra-processed foods by 10%. 

Alzheimer’s disease. In a study published this fall, outdoor light at night was more strongly linked to the disease than even alcohol misuse or obesity.

Diabetes. In one recent study, people living in the most illuminated areas had a 28% higher risk of diabetes than those residing in much darker places. In a country like China, scientists concluded that 9 million cases of diabetes could be linked to light pollution. 
 

What Happens in Your Body When You’re Exposed to Light at Night

Research has revealed that light at night (indoors or out) disrupts circadian clocks, increases inflammation, affects cell division, and suppresses melatonin, the “hormone of darkness.” “Darkness is very important,” Hanifin said. When he and his colleagues decades ago started studying the effects of light on human physiology, “people thought we were borderline crazy,” he said.

Nighttime illumination affects the health and behavior of species as diverse as Siberian hamsters, zebra finches, mice, crickets, and mosquitoes. Like most creatures on Earth, humans have internal clocks that are synced to the 24-hour cycle of day and night. The master clock is in your hypothalamus, a diamond-shaped part of the brain, but every cell in your body has its own clock, too. Many physiological processes run on circadian rhythms (a term derived from a Latin phrase meaning “about a day”), from sleep-wake cycle to hormone secretion, as well as processes involved in cancer progression, such as cell division.

“There are special photoreceptors in the eye that don’t deal with visual information. They just send light information,” Nelson said. “If you get light at the wrong time, you’re resetting the clocks.” 

This internal clock “prepares the body for various recurrent challenges, such as eating,” said Christian Benedict, PhD, a sleep researcher at Uppsala University, Sweden. “Light exposure [at night] can mess up this very important system.” This could mean, for instance, that your insulin is released at the wrong time, Benedict said, causing “a jet lag-ish condition that will then impair the ability to handle blood sugar.” Animal studies confirm that exposure to light at night can reduce glucose tolerance and alter insulin secretion – potential pathways to diabetes.

The hormone melatonin, produced when it’s dark by the pineal gland in the brain, is a key player in this modern struggle. Melatonin helps you sleep, synchronizes the body’s circadian rhythms, protects neurons from damage, regulates the immune system, and fights inflammation. But even a sliver of light at night can suppress its secretion. Less than 30 lux of light, about the level of a pedestrian street at night, can slash melatonin by half. 

When lab animals are exposed to nighttime light, they “show enormous neuroinflammation” — that is, inflammation of nervous tissue, Nelson said. In one experiment on humans, those who slept immersed in weak light had higher levels of C-reactive protein in their blood, a marker of inflammation.

Low melatonin has also been linked to cancer. It “allows the metabolic machinery of the cancer cells to be active,” Hanifin said. One of melatonin’s effects is stimulation of natural killer cells, which can recognize and destroy cancer cells. What’s more, when melatonin plunges, estrogen may go up, which could explain the link between light at night and breast cancer (estrogen fuels tumor growth in breast cancers). 

Researchers concede that satellite data might be too coarse to estimate how much light people are actually exposed to while they sleep. Plus, many of us are staring at bright screens. “But the studies keep coming,” Nelson said, suggesting that outdoor light pollution does have an impact. 

When researchers put wrist-worn light sensors on over 80,000 British people, they found that the more light the device registered between half-past midnight and 6 a.m., the more its wearer was at risk of having diabetes several years down the road — no matter how long they’ve actually slept. This, according to the study’s authors, supports the findings of satellite data.

A similar study that used actigraphy with built-in light sensors, measuring whether people had been sleeping in complete darkness for at least five hours, found that light pollution upped the risk of heart disease by 74%.
 

What Can You Do About This?

Not everyone’s melatonin is affected by nighttime light to the same degree. “Some people are very much sensitive to very dim light, whereas others are not as sensitive and need far, far more light stimulation [to impact melatonin],” Benedict said. In one study, some volunteers needed 350 lux to lower their melatonin by half. For such people, flipping on the light in the bathroom at night wouldn’t matter; for others, though, a mere 6 lux was already as harmful – which is darker than twilight. 

You can protect yourself by keeping your bedroom lights off and your screens stashed away, but avoiding outdoor light pollution may be harder. You can invest in high-quality blackout curtains, of course, although some light may still seep inside. You can plant trees in front of your windows, reorient any motion-detector lights, and even petition your local government to reduce over-illumination of buildings and to choose better streetlights. You can support organizations, such as the International Dark-Sky Association, that work to preserve darkness.

Last but not least, you might want to change your habits. If you live in a particularly light-polluted area, such as the District of Columbia, America’s top place for urban blaze, you might reconsider late-night walks or drives around the neighborhood. Instead, Hanifin said, read a book in bed, while keeping the light “as dim as you can.” It’s “a much better idea versus being outside in midtown Manhattan,” he said. According to recent recommendations published by Hanifin and his colleagues, when you sleep, there should be no more than 1 lux of illumination at the level of your eyes — about as much as you’d get from having a lit candle 1 meter away. 

And if we manage to preserve outdoor darkness, and the stars reappear (including the breathtaking Milky Way), we could reap more benefits — some research suggests that stargazing can elicit positive emotions, a sense of personal growth, and “a variety of transcendent thoughts and experiences.” 
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
• General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
• Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
• Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
• For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
• General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
• Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
• Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
• For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
• General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
• Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
• Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
• For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is on the rise, and recent joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) stress the role of primary care clinicians in prevention and management.

One in three White and one in five Black Americans will develop AF in their lifetime, and the projected number of individuals diagnosed with AF in the United States is expected to double by 2050.

Cardiologists who spoke to Medscape Medical News said primary care clinicians can help control AF by focusing on diabetes and hypertension, along with lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, and alcohol intake.

“It’s not just a rhythm abnormality, but a complex disease that needs to be addressed in a multidisciplinary, holistic way,” said Jose Joglar, MD, a professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and lead author of the guidelines.

Joglar said primary care clinicians can play an important role in counseling on lifestyle changes for patients with the most common etiologies such as poorly controlled hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.
 

The Primary Care Physicians ABCs: Risk Factors and Comorbidities

The three pillars of the new ACC/AHA guidelines include: Stroke risk assessment and management; optimize the patient’s risks; and symptom management.

“As a primary care physician or as a cardiologist, I often think that if I do these things, I’m going to help with a lot of conditions, not just atrial fibrillation,” said Manesh Patel, MD, chief of the Divisions of Cardiology and Clinical Pharmacology at the Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

Lifestyle choices such as sleeping habits can play a big part in AF outcomes. Although the guidelines specifically address obstructive sleep apnea as a risk factor, he said more data are needed on the effect of sleep hygiene — getting 8 hours of sleep a night — a goal few people attain.

“What we do know is people that can routinely try to go to sleep and sleep with some regularity seem to have less cardiovascular risk,” Patel said.

Although existing data are limited, literature reviews have found evidence that sleep disruptions, sleep duration, circadian rhythm, and insomnia are associated with heart disease, independent of obstructive sleep apnea.

Use of alcohol should also be discussed with patients, as many are unaware of the effects of the drug on cardiovascular disease, said Joglar, who is also the program director of the Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship program at the UT Southwestern Medical Center.

“Doctors can inform the patient that this is not a judgment call but simple medical fact,” he said.

Joglar also said many physicians need to become educated on a common misconception.

“Every time a patient develops palpitations or atrial fibrillation, the first thing every patient tells me is, I quit drinking coffee,” Joglar said.

However, as the guidelines point out, the link between caffeine and AF is uncertain at best.
 

Preventing AF

A newer class of drugs may help clinicians manage comorbidities that contribute to AF, such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and obesity, said John Mandrola, MD, an electrophysiologist in Louisville, Kentucky, who hosts This Week in Cardiology on Medscape.

Although originally approved for treatment of diabetes, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are also approved for management of heart failure. Mandrola started prescribing these drugs 2 years ago for patients, given the links of both conditions with AF.

“I think the next frontier for us in cardiology and AF management will be the GLP-1 agonists,” Mandrola said. He hasn’t started prescribing these drugs for his patients yet but said they will likely play a role in the management of patients with AF with the common constellation of comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, and sleep apnea. 

“The GLP-1 agonists have a really good chance of competing with AF ablation for rhythm control over the long term,” he said.
 

Decisions, Decisions: Stroke Risk Scoring Systems

The risk for stroke varies widely among patients with AF, so primary care clinicians can pick among several scoring systems to estimate the risk for stroke and guide the decision on whether to initiate anticoagulation therapy.

The ACC/AHA guidelines do not state a preference for a particular instrument. The Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke, Vascular disease, Sex (CHA2DS2-VASc) score is the most widely used and validated instrument, Joglar said. He usually recommends anticoagulation if the CHA2DS2-VASc score is > 2, dependent on individual patient factors.

“If you have a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1, and you only had one episode of AF for a few hours a year ago, then your risk of stroke is not as high as somebody who has a score of 1 but has more frequent or persistent AF,” Joglar said.

None of the systems is perfect at predicting risk for stroke, so clinicians should discuss options with patients.

“The real message is, are you talking about the risk of stroke and systemic embolism to your patient, so that the patient understands that risk?” he said.

Patel also said measuring creatine clearance can be analogous to using an instrument like CHA2DS2-VASc.

“I often think about renal disease as a very good risk marker and something that does elevate your risk,” he said.
 

Which Anticoagulant?

Although the ACC/AHA guidelines still recommend warfarin for patients with AF with mechanical heart valves or moderate to severe rheumatic fever, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first-line therapy for all other patients with AF.

In terms of which DOACs to use, the differences are subtle, according to Patel.

“I don’t know that they’re that different from each other,” he said. “All of the new drugs are better than warfarin by far.”

Patel pointed out that dabigatran at 150 mg is the only DOAC shown to reduce the incidence of ischemic stroke. For patients with renal dysfunction, he has a slight preference for a 15-mg dose of rivaroxaban.

Mandrola said he mainly prescribes apixaban and rivaroxaban, the latter of which requires only once a day dosing.

“We stopped using dabigatran because 10% of people get gastrointestinal upset,” he said.

Although studies suggest aspirin is less effective than either warfarin or DOACs for the prevention of stroke, Joglar said he still sees patients who come to him after being prescribed low-dose aspirin from primary care clinicians.

“We made it very clear that it should not be recommended just for mitigating stroke risk in atrial fibrillation,” Joglar said. “You could use it if the patient has another indication, such as a prior heart attack.”
 

Does My Patient Have to Be in Normal Sinus Rhythm?

The new guidelines present evidence maintaining sinus rhythm should be favored over controlling heart rate for managing AF.

“We’ve focused on rhythm control as a better strategy, especially catheter ablation, which seems to be particularly effective in parallel to lifestyle interventions and management of comorbidities,” Joglar said. Rhythm control is of particular benefit for patients with AF triggered by heart failure. Control of rhythm in these patients has been shown to improve multiple outcomes such as ejection fraction, symptoms, and survival.

Patel said as a patient’s symptoms increase, the more likely a clinician will be able to control sinus rhythm. Some patients do not notice their arrhythmia, but others feel dizzy or have chest pain.

“The less symptomatic the patient is, the more likely they’re going to tolerate it, especially if they’re older, and it’s hard to get them into sinus rhythm,” Patel said.
 

When to Refer for Catheter Ablation?

The new guidelines upgraded the recommendation for catheter ablation to class I (strong recommendation) for patients with symptomatic AF in whom anti-arrhythmic therapy is unsuccessful, not tolerated, or contraindicated; patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF (typically younger patients with few comorbidities); and patients with symptomatic or clinically significant atrial flutter. The previous iteration recommended trying drug therapy first.

Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of catheter ablation.

“In somebody who is younger, with a healthy heart, the 1-year success rate of the procedure might be about 70%,” Joglar said. While 70% of patients receiving a catheter have no AF episodes in the following year, Joglar said 20%-25% of those who do have recurrences will experience fewer or shorter episodes.

Conversations about rate vs rhythm control and whether to pursue catheter ablation often come down to preference, Patel said. He would tend to intervene earlier using ablation in patients with heart failure or those experiencing symptoms of AF who cannot be controlled with a heart rate < 100 beats/min.

But he said he prefers using medication for rate control in many of his patients who are older, have chronic AF, and do not have heart failure.

Mandrola takes a more conservative approach, reserving catheter ablation for patients in whom risk factor management and anti-arrhythmic drugs have not been successful.

“In my hospital, it’s done for patients who have symptomatic AF that’s really impacting their quality of life,” he said. But for those with fewer symptoms, his advice is to provide education, reassurance, and time because AF can resolve on its own.
 

What About Data From Implantables and Wearables?

The guidelines provide an algorithm for when to treat non-symptomatic atrial high-rate episodes detected by a cardiovascular implantable electronic device such as a pacemaker or defibrillator. Episodes less than 5 minutes can be ignored, while treatment could be considered for those with episodes lasting 5 minutes up to 24 hours with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 3, or lasting longer than 24 hours with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2.

But whether anticoagulation improves outcomes is unclear.

“That is a $64,000 question,” Mandrola said. “I would bet every day I get a notification in the electronic health record that says Mr. Smith had 2 hours of AFib 2 weeks ago.”

He also hears from patients who report their Apple Watch has detected an episode of AF.

Mandrola cited evidence from two recent studies of patients who had an atrial high-rate episode longer than 6 minutes detected by implantable devices. The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial randomized patients over 65 years with one or more risk factors for stroke to receive a DOAC or placebo, while the ARTESIA trial used similar inclusion criteria to assign patients to receive either DOAC or aspirin. Both studies reported modest reductions in stroke that were outweighed by a higher incidence of major bleeding in the group receiving anticoagulation.

Shared decision-making should play a role in deciding how aggressively to treat episodes of AF detected by implantable or wearable devices.

He said some patients fear having a stroke, while others are adamantly opposed to taking an anticoagulant.

For patients who present with a documented episode of AF but who otherwise have no symptoms, Patel said clinicians should consider risk for stroke and frequency and duration of episodes.

“One way clinicians should be thinking about it is, the more risk factors they have, the lower burden of AF I need to treat,” Patel said. Even for patients who are having only short episodes of AF, he has a low threshold for recommending an anticoagulation drug if the patient’s CHA2DS2-VASc score is high.

Patel reported research grants from Bayer, Novartis, Idorsia, NHLBI, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and served as a consultant on the advisory boards of Bayer, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Esperion Therapeutics. 

Joglar and Mandrola had no disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is on the rise, and recent joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) stress the role of primary care clinicians in prevention and management.

One in three White and one in five Black Americans will develop AF in their lifetime, and the projected number of individuals diagnosed with AF in the United States is expected to double by 2050.

Cardiologists who spoke to Medscape Medical News said primary care clinicians can help control AF by focusing on diabetes and hypertension, along with lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, and alcohol intake.

“It’s not just a rhythm abnormality, but a complex disease that needs to be addressed in a multidisciplinary, holistic way,” said Jose Joglar, MD, a professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and lead author of the guidelines.

Joglar said primary care clinicians can play an important role in counseling on lifestyle changes for patients with the most common etiologies such as poorly controlled hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.
 

The Primary Care Physicians ABCs: Risk Factors and Comorbidities

The three pillars of the new ACC/AHA guidelines include: Stroke risk assessment and management; optimize the patient’s risks; and symptom management.

“As a primary care physician or as a cardiologist, I often think that if I do these things, I’m going to help with a lot of conditions, not just atrial fibrillation,” said Manesh Patel, MD, chief of the Divisions of Cardiology and Clinical Pharmacology at the Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

Lifestyle choices such as sleeping habits can play a big part in AF outcomes. Although the guidelines specifically address obstructive sleep apnea as a risk factor, he said more data are needed on the effect of sleep hygiene — getting 8 hours of sleep a night — a goal few people attain.

“What we do know is people that can routinely try to go to sleep and sleep with some regularity seem to have less cardiovascular risk,” Patel said.

Although existing data are limited, literature reviews have found evidence that sleep disruptions, sleep duration, circadian rhythm, and insomnia are associated with heart disease, independent of obstructive sleep apnea.

Use of alcohol should also be discussed with patients, as many are unaware of the effects of the drug on cardiovascular disease, said Joglar, who is also the program director of the Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship program at the UT Southwestern Medical Center.

“Doctors can inform the patient that this is not a judgment call but simple medical fact,” he said.

Joglar also said many physicians need to become educated on a common misconception.

“Every time a patient develops palpitations or atrial fibrillation, the first thing every patient tells me is, I quit drinking coffee,” Joglar said.

However, as the guidelines point out, the link between caffeine and AF is uncertain at best.
 

Preventing AF

A newer class of drugs may help clinicians manage comorbidities that contribute to AF, such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and obesity, said John Mandrola, MD, an electrophysiologist in Louisville, Kentucky, who hosts This Week in Cardiology on Medscape.

Although originally approved for treatment of diabetes, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are also approved for management of heart failure. Mandrola started prescribing these drugs 2 years ago for patients, given the links of both conditions with AF.

“I think the next frontier for us in cardiology and AF management will be the GLP-1 agonists,” Mandrola said. He hasn’t started prescribing these drugs for his patients yet but said they will likely play a role in the management of patients with AF with the common constellation of comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, and sleep apnea. 

“The GLP-1 agonists have a really good chance of competing with AF ablation for rhythm control over the long term,” he said.
 

Decisions, Decisions: Stroke Risk Scoring Systems

The risk for stroke varies widely among patients with AF, so primary care clinicians can pick among several scoring systems to estimate the risk for stroke and guide the decision on whether to initiate anticoagulation therapy.

The ACC/AHA guidelines do not state a preference for a particular instrument. The Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke, Vascular disease, Sex (CHA2DS2-VASc) score is the most widely used and validated instrument, Joglar said. He usually recommends anticoagulation if the CHA2DS2-VASc score is > 2, dependent on individual patient factors.

“If you have a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1, and you only had one episode of AF for a few hours a year ago, then your risk of stroke is not as high as somebody who has a score of 1 but has more frequent or persistent AF,” Joglar said.

None of the systems is perfect at predicting risk for stroke, so clinicians should discuss options with patients.

“The real message is, are you talking about the risk of stroke and systemic embolism to your patient, so that the patient understands that risk?” he said.

Patel also said measuring creatine clearance can be analogous to using an instrument like CHA2DS2-VASc.

“I often think about renal disease as a very good risk marker and something that does elevate your risk,” he said.
 

Which Anticoagulant?

Although the ACC/AHA guidelines still recommend warfarin for patients with AF with mechanical heart valves or moderate to severe rheumatic fever, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first-line therapy for all other patients with AF.

In terms of which DOACs to use, the differences are subtle, according to Patel.

“I don’t know that they’re that different from each other,” he said. “All of the new drugs are better than warfarin by far.”

Patel pointed out that dabigatran at 150 mg is the only DOAC shown to reduce the incidence of ischemic stroke. For patients with renal dysfunction, he has a slight preference for a 15-mg dose of rivaroxaban.

Mandrola said he mainly prescribes apixaban and rivaroxaban, the latter of which requires only once a day dosing.

“We stopped using dabigatran because 10% of people get gastrointestinal upset,” he said.

Although studies suggest aspirin is less effective than either warfarin or DOACs for the prevention of stroke, Joglar said he still sees patients who come to him after being prescribed low-dose aspirin from primary care clinicians.

“We made it very clear that it should not be recommended just for mitigating stroke risk in atrial fibrillation,” Joglar said. “You could use it if the patient has another indication, such as a prior heart attack.”
 

Does My Patient Have to Be in Normal Sinus Rhythm?

The new guidelines present evidence maintaining sinus rhythm should be favored over controlling heart rate for managing AF.

“We’ve focused on rhythm control as a better strategy, especially catheter ablation, which seems to be particularly effective in parallel to lifestyle interventions and management of comorbidities,” Joglar said. Rhythm control is of particular benefit for patients with AF triggered by heart failure. Control of rhythm in these patients has been shown to improve multiple outcomes such as ejection fraction, symptoms, and survival.

Patel said as a patient’s symptoms increase, the more likely a clinician will be able to control sinus rhythm. Some patients do not notice their arrhythmia, but others feel dizzy or have chest pain.

“The less symptomatic the patient is, the more likely they’re going to tolerate it, especially if they’re older, and it’s hard to get them into sinus rhythm,” Patel said.
 

When to Refer for Catheter Ablation?

The new guidelines upgraded the recommendation for catheter ablation to class I (strong recommendation) for patients with symptomatic AF in whom anti-arrhythmic therapy is unsuccessful, not tolerated, or contraindicated; patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF (typically younger patients with few comorbidities); and patients with symptomatic or clinically significant atrial flutter. The previous iteration recommended trying drug therapy first.

Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of catheter ablation.

“In somebody who is younger, with a healthy heart, the 1-year success rate of the procedure might be about 70%,” Joglar said. While 70% of patients receiving a catheter have no AF episodes in the following year, Joglar said 20%-25% of those who do have recurrences will experience fewer or shorter episodes.

Conversations about rate vs rhythm control and whether to pursue catheter ablation often come down to preference, Patel said. He would tend to intervene earlier using ablation in patients with heart failure or those experiencing symptoms of AF who cannot be controlled with a heart rate < 100 beats/min.

But he said he prefers using medication for rate control in many of his patients who are older, have chronic AF, and do not have heart failure.

Mandrola takes a more conservative approach, reserving catheter ablation for patients in whom risk factor management and anti-arrhythmic drugs have not been successful.

“In my hospital, it’s done for patients who have symptomatic AF that’s really impacting their quality of life,” he said. But for those with fewer symptoms, his advice is to provide education, reassurance, and time because AF can resolve on its own.
 

What About Data From Implantables and Wearables?

The guidelines provide an algorithm for when to treat non-symptomatic atrial high-rate episodes detected by a cardiovascular implantable electronic device such as a pacemaker or defibrillator. Episodes less than 5 minutes can be ignored, while treatment could be considered for those with episodes lasting 5 minutes up to 24 hours with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 3, or lasting longer than 24 hours with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2.

But whether anticoagulation improves outcomes is unclear.

“That is a $64,000 question,” Mandrola said. “I would bet every day I get a notification in the electronic health record that says Mr. Smith had 2 hours of AFib 2 weeks ago.”

He also hears from patients who report their Apple Watch has detected an episode of AF.

Mandrola cited evidence from two recent studies of patients who had an atrial high-rate episode longer than 6 minutes detected by implantable devices. The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial randomized patients over 65 years with one or more risk factors for stroke to receive a DOAC or placebo, while the ARTESIA trial used similar inclusion criteria to assign patients to receive either DOAC or aspirin. Both studies reported modest reductions in stroke that were outweighed by a higher incidence of major bleeding in the group receiving anticoagulation.

Shared decision-making should play a role in deciding how aggressively to treat episodes of AF detected by implantable or wearable devices.

He said some patients fear having a stroke, while others are adamantly opposed to taking an anticoagulant.

For patients who present with a documented episode of AF but who otherwise have no symptoms, Patel said clinicians should consider risk for stroke and frequency and duration of episodes.

“One way clinicians should be thinking about it is, the more risk factors they have, the lower burden of AF I need to treat,” Patel said. Even for patients who are having only short episodes of AF, he has a low threshold for recommending an anticoagulation drug if the patient’s CHA2DS2-VASc score is high.

Patel reported research grants from Bayer, Novartis, Idorsia, NHLBI, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and served as a consultant on the advisory boards of Bayer, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Esperion Therapeutics. 

Joglar and Mandrola had no disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is on the rise, and recent joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) stress the role of primary care clinicians in prevention and management.

One in three White and one in five Black Americans will develop AF in their lifetime, and the projected number of individuals diagnosed with AF in the United States is expected to double by 2050.

Cardiologists who spoke to Medscape Medical News said primary care clinicians can help control AF by focusing on diabetes and hypertension, along with lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, and alcohol intake.

“It’s not just a rhythm abnormality, but a complex disease that needs to be addressed in a multidisciplinary, holistic way,” said Jose Joglar, MD, a professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and lead author of the guidelines.

Joglar said primary care clinicians can play an important role in counseling on lifestyle changes for patients with the most common etiologies such as poorly controlled hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.
 

The Primary Care Physicians ABCs: Risk Factors and Comorbidities

The three pillars of the new ACC/AHA guidelines include: Stroke risk assessment and management; optimize the patient’s risks; and symptom management.

“As a primary care physician or as a cardiologist, I often think that if I do these things, I’m going to help with a lot of conditions, not just atrial fibrillation,” said Manesh Patel, MD, chief of the Divisions of Cardiology and Clinical Pharmacology at the Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

Lifestyle choices such as sleeping habits can play a big part in AF outcomes. Although the guidelines specifically address obstructive sleep apnea as a risk factor, he said more data are needed on the effect of sleep hygiene — getting 8 hours of sleep a night — a goal few people attain.

“What we do know is people that can routinely try to go to sleep and sleep with some regularity seem to have less cardiovascular risk,” Patel said.

Although existing data are limited, literature reviews have found evidence that sleep disruptions, sleep duration, circadian rhythm, and insomnia are associated with heart disease, independent of obstructive sleep apnea.

Use of alcohol should also be discussed with patients, as many are unaware of the effects of the drug on cardiovascular disease, said Joglar, who is also the program director of the Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship program at the UT Southwestern Medical Center.

“Doctors can inform the patient that this is not a judgment call but simple medical fact,” he said.

Joglar also said many physicians need to become educated on a common misconception.

“Every time a patient develops palpitations or atrial fibrillation, the first thing every patient tells me is, I quit drinking coffee,” Joglar said.

However, as the guidelines point out, the link between caffeine and AF is uncertain at best.
 

Preventing AF

A newer class of drugs may help clinicians manage comorbidities that contribute to AF, such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and obesity, said John Mandrola, MD, an electrophysiologist in Louisville, Kentucky, who hosts This Week in Cardiology on Medscape.

Although originally approved for treatment of diabetes, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are also approved for management of heart failure. Mandrola started prescribing these drugs 2 years ago for patients, given the links of both conditions with AF.

“I think the next frontier for us in cardiology and AF management will be the GLP-1 agonists,” Mandrola said. He hasn’t started prescribing these drugs for his patients yet but said they will likely play a role in the management of patients with AF with the common constellation of comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, and sleep apnea. 

“The GLP-1 agonists have a really good chance of competing with AF ablation for rhythm control over the long term,” he said.
 

Decisions, Decisions: Stroke Risk Scoring Systems

The risk for stroke varies widely among patients with AF, so primary care clinicians can pick among several scoring systems to estimate the risk for stroke and guide the decision on whether to initiate anticoagulation therapy.

The ACC/AHA guidelines do not state a preference for a particular instrument. The Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke, Vascular disease, Sex (CHA2DS2-VASc) score is the most widely used and validated instrument, Joglar said. He usually recommends anticoagulation if the CHA2DS2-VASc score is > 2, dependent on individual patient factors.

“If you have a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1, and you only had one episode of AF for a few hours a year ago, then your risk of stroke is not as high as somebody who has a score of 1 but has more frequent or persistent AF,” Joglar said.

None of the systems is perfect at predicting risk for stroke, so clinicians should discuss options with patients.

“The real message is, are you talking about the risk of stroke and systemic embolism to your patient, so that the patient understands that risk?” he said.

Patel also said measuring creatine clearance can be analogous to using an instrument like CHA2DS2-VASc.

“I often think about renal disease as a very good risk marker and something that does elevate your risk,” he said.
 

Which Anticoagulant?

Although the ACC/AHA guidelines still recommend warfarin for patients with AF with mechanical heart valves or moderate to severe rheumatic fever, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first-line therapy for all other patients with AF.

In terms of which DOACs to use, the differences are subtle, according to Patel.

“I don’t know that they’re that different from each other,” he said. “All of the new drugs are better than warfarin by far.”

Patel pointed out that dabigatran at 150 mg is the only DOAC shown to reduce the incidence of ischemic stroke. For patients with renal dysfunction, he has a slight preference for a 15-mg dose of rivaroxaban.

Mandrola said he mainly prescribes apixaban and rivaroxaban, the latter of which requires only once a day dosing.

“We stopped using dabigatran because 10% of people get gastrointestinal upset,” he said.

Although studies suggest aspirin is less effective than either warfarin or DOACs for the prevention of stroke, Joglar said he still sees patients who come to him after being prescribed low-dose aspirin from primary care clinicians.

“We made it very clear that it should not be recommended just for mitigating stroke risk in atrial fibrillation,” Joglar said. “You could use it if the patient has another indication, such as a prior heart attack.”
 

Does My Patient Have to Be in Normal Sinus Rhythm?

The new guidelines present evidence maintaining sinus rhythm should be favored over controlling heart rate for managing AF.

“We’ve focused on rhythm control as a better strategy, especially catheter ablation, which seems to be particularly effective in parallel to lifestyle interventions and management of comorbidities,” Joglar said. Rhythm control is of particular benefit for patients with AF triggered by heart failure. Control of rhythm in these patients has been shown to improve multiple outcomes such as ejection fraction, symptoms, and survival.

Patel said as a patient’s symptoms increase, the more likely a clinician will be able to control sinus rhythm. Some patients do not notice their arrhythmia, but others feel dizzy or have chest pain.

“The less symptomatic the patient is, the more likely they’re going to tolerate it, especially if they’re older, and it’s hard to get them into sinus rhythm,” Patel said.
 

When to Refer for Catheter Ablation?

The new guidelines upgraded the recommendation for catheter ablation to class I (strong recommendation) for patients with symptomatic AF in whom anti-arrhythmic therapy is unsuccessful, not tolerated, or contraindicated; patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF (typically younger patients with few comorbidities); and patients with symptomatic or clinically significant atrial flutter. The previous iteration recommended trying drug therapy first.

Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of catheter ablation.

“In somebody who is younger, with a healthy heart, the 1-year success rate of the procedure might be about 70%,” Joglar said. While 70% of patients receiving a catheter have no AF episodes in the following year, Joglar said 20%-25% of those who do have recurrences will experience fewer or shorter episodes.

Conversations about rate vs rhythm control and whether to pursue catheter ablation often come down to preference, Patel said. He would tend to intervene earlier using ablation in patients with heart failure or those experiencing symptoms of AF who cannot be controlled with a heart rate < 100 beats/min.

But he said he prefers using medication for rate control in many of his patients who are older, have chronic AF, and do not have heart failure.

Mandrola takes a more conservative approach, reserving catheter ablation for patients in whom risk factor management and anti-arrhythmic drugs have not been successful.

“In my hospital, it’s done for patients who have symptomatic AF that’s really impacting their quality of life,” he said. But for those with fewer symptoms, his advice is to provide education, reassurance, and time because AF can resolve on its own.
 

What About Data From Implantables and Wearables?

The guidelines provide an algorithm for when to treat non-symptomatic atrial high-rate episodes detected by a cardiovascular implantable electronic device such as a pacemaker or defibrillator. Episodes less than 5 minutes can be ignored, while treatment could be considered for those with episodes lasting 5 minutes up to 24 hours with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 3, or lasting longer than 24 hours with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2.

But whether anticoagulation improves outcomes is unclear.

“That is a $64,000 question,” Mandrola said. “I would bet every day I get a notification in the electronic health record that says Mr. Smith had 2 hours of AFib 2 weeks ago.”

He also hears from patients who report their Apple Watch has detected an episode of AF.

Mandrola cited evidence from two recent studies of patients who had an atrial high-rate episode longer than 6 minutes detected by implantable devices. The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial randomized patients over 65 years with one or more risk factors for stroke to receive a DOAC or placebo, while the ARTESIA trial used similar inclusion criteria to assign patients to receive either DOAC or aspirin. Both studies reported modest reductions in stroke that were outweighed by a higher incidence of major bleeding in the group receiving anticoagulation.

Shared decision-making should play a role in deciding how aggressively to treat episodes of AF detected by implantable or wearable devices.

He said some patients fear having a stroke, while others are adamantly opposed to taking an anticoagulant.

For patients who present with a documented episode of AF but who otherwise have no symptoms, Patel said clinicians should consider risk for stroke and frequency and duration of episodes.

“One way clinicians should be thinking about it is, the more risk factors they have, the lower burden of AF I need to treat,” Patel said. Even for patients who are having only short episodes of AF, he has a low threshold for recommending an anticoagulation drug if the patient’s CHA2DS2-VASc score is high.

Patel reported research grants from Bayer, Novartis, Idorsia, NHLBI, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and served as a consultant on the advisory boards of Bayer, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Esperion Therapeutics. 

Joglar and Mandrola had no disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long COVID, a major public health crisis, is also becoming a significant economic crisis. A new study in Nature reports that the global annual economic impact of long COVID has hit $1 trillion — or about 1% of the global economy.

Long COVID is estimated to affect 6%-7% of adults. Those afflicted are often unable to work for extended periods, and some simply stop working altogether.

Besides damaging individual lives, long COVID is having wide-ranging impacts on health systems and economies worldwide, as those who suffer from it have large absences from work, leading to lower productivity. Even those who return to work after weeks, months, or even up to a year out of work may come back with worse productivity and some functional impairment — as a few of the condition’s common symptoms include fatigue and brain fog.

Experts say more is needed not only in terms of scientific research into new treatments for long COVID but also from a public policy perspective.

Long COVID’s impact on the labor force is already having ripple effects throughout the economy of the United States and other countries. Earlier this year, the US Government Accountability Office stated long COVID potentially affects up to 23 million Americans, with as many as a million people out of work. The healthcare industry is particularly hard hit.

The latest survey from the National Center for Health Statistics estimated 17.3%-18.6% of adults have experienced long COVID. This isn’t the same as those who have it now, only a broad indicator of people who’ve ever experienced symptoms.

Public health experts, economists, researchers, and physicians say they are only beginning to focus on ways to reduce long COVID’s impact.

They suggest a range of potential solutions to address the public health crisis and the economic impacts — including implementing a more thorough surveillance system to track long COVID cases, building better ventilation systems in hospitals and buildings to reduce the spread of the virus, increasing vaccination efforts as new viral strains continuously emerge, and more funding for long COVID research to better quantify and qualify the disease’s impact.
 

Shaky Statistics, Inconsistent Surveillance

David Smith, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Diego, said more needs to be done to survey, quantify, and qualify the impacts of long COVID on the economy before practical solutions can be identified.

“Our surveillance system sucks,” Smith said. “I can see how many people test positive for COVID, but how many of those people have long COVID?”

Long COVID also doesn’t have a true definition or standard diagnosis, which complicates surveillance efforts. It includes a spectrum of symptoms such as shortness of breath, chronic fatigue, and brain fog that linger for 2-3 months after an acute infection. But there’s no “concrete case definition,” Smith said. “And not everybody’s long COVID is exactly the same as everybody else’s.”

As a result, epidemiologists can’t effectively characterize the disease, and health economists can’t measure its exact economic impact.

Few countries have established comprehensive surveillance systems to estimate the burden of long COVID at the population level.

The United States currently tracks new cases by measuring wastewater levels, which isn’t as comprehensive as the tracking that was done during the pandemic. But positive wastewater samples can’t tell us who is infected in an area, nor can it distinguish whether a visitor/tourist or resident is mostly contributing to the wastewater analysis — an important distinction in public health studies.

Wastewater surveillance is an excellent complement to traditional disease surveillance with advantages and disadvantages, but it shouldn’t be the sole way to measure disease.
 

What Research Best Informs the Debate?

A study by Economist Impact — a think tank that partners with corporations, foundations, NGOs, and governments to help drive policy — estimated between a 0.5% and 2.3% gross domestic product (GDP) loss across eight separate countries in 2024. The study included the United Kingdom and United States.

Meanwhile, Australian researchers recently detailed how long COVID-related reductions in labor supply affected its productivity and GDP from 2022 to 2024. The study found that long COVID could be costing the Australian economy about 0.5% of its GDP, which researchers deemed a conservative estimate.

Public health researchers in New Zealand used the estimate of GDP loss in Australia to measure their own potential losses and advocated for strengthening occupational support across all sectors to protect health.

But these studies can’t quite compare with what would have to be done for the United States economy.

“New Zealand is small ... and has an excellent public health system with good delivery of vaccines and treatments…so how do we compare that to us?” Smith said. “They do better in all of their public health metrics than we do.”
 

Measuring the Economic Impact

Gopi Shah Goda, PhD, a health economist and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, co-authored a 2023 study that found COVID-19 reduced the US labor force by about 500,000 people.

Plus, workers who missed a full week due to COVID-19 absences became 7% less likely to return to the labor force a year later compared with workers who didn’t miss work for health reasons. That amounts to 0.2% of the labor force, a significant number.

“Even a small percent of the labor force is a big number…it’s like an extra year of populating aging,” Goda said.

“Some people who get long COVID might have dropped out of the labor force anyway,” Goda added.

The study concluded that average individual earnings lost from long COVID were $9000, and the total lost labor supply amounted to $62 billion annually — about half the estimated productivity losses from cancer or diabetes.

But research into long COVID research continues to be underfunded compared with other health conditions, experts noted.

Cancer and diabetes both receive billions of research dollars annually from the National Institutes of Health. Long COVID research gets only a few million, according to Goda.
 

Informing Public Health Policy

When it comes to caring for patients with long COVID, the big issue facing every nation’s public policy leaders is how best to allocate limited health resources.

“Public health never has enough money ... Do they buy more vaccines? Do they do educational programs? Who do they target the most?” Smith said.

Though Smith thinks the best preventative measure is increased vaccination, vaccination rates remain low in the United States.

“Unfortunately, as last fall demonstrated, there’s a lot of vaccine indifference and skepticism,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.

Over the past year, only 14% of eligible children and 22% of adults received the 2023-2024 COVID vaccine boosters.

Schaffner said public health experts wrestle with ways to assure the public vaccines are safe and effective.

“They’re trying to provide a level of comfort that [getting vaccinated] is the socially appropriate thing to do,” which remains a significant challenge, Schaffner said.

Some people don’t have access to vaccines and comprehensive medical services because they lack insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare. And the United States still doesn’t distribute vaccines as well as other countries, Schaffner added.

“In other countries, every doctor’s office gets vaccines for free ... here, we have a large commercial enterprise that basically runs it…there are still populations who aren’t reached,” he said.

Long COVID clinics that have opened around the country have offered help to some patients with long COVID. A year and a half ago, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, established its Long COVID Care Center. Stanford University, Stanford, California, opened its Long COVID Clinic back in 2021. Vanderbilt University now has its own, as well — the Adult Post-COVID Clinic.

But these clinics have faced declining federal resources, forcing some to close and others to face questions about whether they will be able to continue to operate without more aggressive federal direction and policy planning.

“With some central direction, we could provide better supportive care for the many patients with long COVID out there,” Schaffner said.

For countries with universal healthcare systems, services such as occupational health, extended sick leave, extended time for disability, and workers’ compensation benefits are readily available.

But in the United States, it’s often left to the physicians and their patients to figure out a plan.

“I think we could make physicians more aware of options for their patients…for example, regularly check eligibility for workers compensation,” Schaffner said.
 

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

Long COVID, a major public health crisis, is also becoming a significant economic crisis. A new study in Nature reports that the global annual economic impact of long COVID has hit $1 trillion — or about 1% of the global economy.

Long COVID is estimated to affect 6%-7% of adults. Those afflicted are often unable to work for extended periods, and some simply stop working altogether.

Besides damaging individual lives, long COVID is having wide-ranging impacts on health systems and economies worldwide, as those who suffer from it have large absences from work, leading to lower productivity. Even those who return to work after weeks, months, or even up to a year out of work may come back with worse productivity and some functional impairment — as a few of the condition’s common symptoms include fatigue and brain fog.

Experts say more is needed not only in terms of scientific research into new treatments for long COVID but also from a public policy perspective.

Long COVID’s impact on the labor force is already having ripple effects throughout the economy of the United States and other countries. Earlier this year, the US Government Accountability Office stated long COVID potentially affects up to 23 million Americans, with as many as a million people out of work. The healthcare industry is particularly hard hit.

The latest survey from the National Center for Health Statistics estimated 17.3%-18.6% of adults have experienced long COVID. This isn’t the same as those who have it now, only a broad indicator of people who’ve ever experienced symptoms.

Public health experts, economists, researchers, and physicians say they are only beginning to focus on ways to reduce long COVID’s impact.

They suggest a range of potential solutions to address the public health crisis and the economic impacts — including implementing a more thorough surveillance system to track long COVID cases, building better ventilation systems in hospitals and buildings to reduce the spread of the virus, increasing vaccination efforts as new viral strains continuously emerge, and more funding for long COVID research to better quantify and qualify the disease’s impact.
 

Shaky Statistics, Inconsistent Surveillance

David Smith, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Diego, said more needs to be done to survey, quantify, and qualify the impacts of long COVID on the economy before practical solutions can be identified.

“Our surveillance system sucks,” Smith said. “I can see how many people test positive for COVID, but how many of those people have long COVID?”

Long COVID also doesn’t have a true definition or standard diagnosis, which complicates surveillance efforts. It includes a spectrum of symptoms such as shortness of breath, chronic fatigue, and brain fog that linger for 2-3 months after an acute infection. But there’s no “concrete case definition,” Smith said. “And not everybody’s long COVID is exactly the same as everybody else’s.”

As a result, epidemiologists can’t effectively characterize the disease, and health economists can’t measure its exact economic impact.

Few countries have established comprehensive surveillance systems to estimate the burden of long COVID at the population level.

The United States currently tracks new cases by measuring wastewater levels, which isn’t as comprehensive as the tracking that was done during the pandemic. But positive wastewater samples can’t tell us who is infected in an area, nor can it distinguish whether a visitor/tourist or resident is mostly contributing to the wastewater analysis — an important distinction in public health studies.

Wastewater surveillance is an excellent complement to traditional disease surveillance with advantages and disadvantages, but it shouldn’t be the sole way to measure disease.
 

What Research Best Informs the Debate?

A study by Economist Impact — a think tank that partners with corporations, foundations, NGOs, and governments to help drive policy — estimated between a 0.5% and 2.3% gross domestic product (GDP) loss across eight separate countries in 2024. The study included the United Kingdom and United States.

Meanwhile, Australian researchers recently detailed how long COVID-related reductions in labor supply affected its productivity and GDP from 2022 to 2024. The study found that long COVID could be costing the Australian economy about 0.5% of its GDP, which researchers deemed a conservative estimate.

Public health researchers in New Zealand used the estimate of GDP loss in Australia to measure their own potential losses and advocated for strengthening occupational support across all sectors to protect health.

But these studies can’t quite compare with what would have to be done for the United States economy.

“New Zealand is small ... and has an excellent public health system with good delivery of vaccines and treatments…so how do we compare that to us?” Smith said. “They do better in all of their public health metrics than we do.”
 

Measuring the Economic Impact

Gopi Shah Goda, PhD, a health economist and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, co-authored a 2023 study that found COVID-19 reduced the US labor force by about 500,000 people.

Plus, workers who missed a full week due to COVID-19 absences became 7% less likely to return to the labor force a year later compared with workers who didn’t miss work for health reasons. That amounts to 0.2% of the labor force, a significant number.

“Even a small percent of the labor force is a big number…it’s like an extra year of populating aging,” Goda said.

“Some people who get long COVID might have dropped out of the labor force anyway,” Goda added.

The study concluded that average individual earnings lost from long COVID were $9000, and the total lost labor supply amounted to $62 billion annually — about half the estimated productivity losses from cancer or diabetes.

But research into long COVID research continues to be underfunded compared with other health conditions, experts noted.

Cancer and diabetes both receive billions of research dollars annually from the National Institutes of Health. Long COVID research gets only a few million, according to Goda.
 

Informing Public Health Policy

When it comes to caring for patients with long COVID, the big issue facing every nation’s public policy leaders is how best to allocate limited health resources.

“Public health never has enough money ... Do they buy more vaccines? Do they do educational programs? Who do they target the most?” Smith said.

Though Smith thinks the best preventative measure is increased vaccination, vaccination rates remain low in the United States.

“Unfortunately, as last fall demonstrated, there’s a lot of vaccine indifference and skepticism,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.

Over the past year, only 14% of eligible children and 22% of adults received the 2023-2024 COVID vaccine boosters.

Schaffner said public health experts wrestle with ways to assure the public vaccines are safe and effective.

“They’re trying to provide a level of comfort that [getting vaccinated] is the socially appropriate thing to do,” which remains a significant challenge, Schaffner said.

Some people don’t have access to vaccines and comprehensive medical services because they lack insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare. And the United States still doesn’t distribute vaccines as well as other countries, Schaffner added.

“In other countries, every doctor’s office gets vaccines for free ... here, we have a large commercial enterprise that basically runs it…there are still populations who aren’t reached,” he said.

Long COVID clinics that have opened around the country have offered help to some patients with long COVID. A year and a half ago, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, established its Long COVID Care Center. Stanford University, Stanford, California, opened its Long COVID Clinic back in 2021. Vanderbilt University now has its own, as well — the Adult Post-COVID Clinic.

But these clinics have faced declining federal resources, forcing some to close and others to face questions about whether they will be able to continue to operate without more aggressive federal direction and policy planning.

“With some central direction, we could provide better supportive care for the many patients with long COVID out there,” Schaffner said.

For countries with universal healthcare systems, services such as occupational health, extended sick leave, extended time for disability, and workers’ compensation benefits are readily available.

But in the United States, it’s often left to the physicians and their patients to figure out a plan.

“I think we could make physicians more aware of options for their patients…for example, regularly check eligibility for workers compensation,” Schaffner said.
 

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

Long COVID, a major public health crisis, is also becoming a significant economic crisis. A new study in Nature reports that the global annual economic impact of long COVID has hit $1 trillion — or about 1% of the global economy.

Long COVID is estimated to affect 6%-7% of adults. Those afflicted are often unable to work for extended periods, and some simply stop working altogether.

Besides damaging individual lives, long COVID is having wide-ranging impacts on health systems and economies worldwide, as those who suffer from it have large absences from work, leading to lower productivity. Even those who return to work after weeks, months, or even up to a year out of work may come back with worse productivity and some functional impairment — as a few of the condition’s common symptoms include fatigue and brain fog.

Experts say more is needed not only in terms of scientific research into new treatments for long COVID but also from a public policy perspective.

Long COVID’s impact on the labor force is already having ripple effects throughout the economy of the United States and other countries. Earlier this year, the US Government Accountability Office stated long COVID potentially affects up to 23 million Americans, with as many as a million people out of work. The healthcare industry is particularly hard hit.

The latest survey from the National Center for Health Statistics estimated 17.3%-18.6% of adults have experienced long COVID. This isn’t the same as those who have it now, only a broad indicator of people who’ve ever experienced symptoms.

Public health experts, economists, researchers, and physicians say they are only beginning to focus on ways to reduce long COVID’s impact.

They suggest a range of potential solutions to address the public health crisis and the economic impacts — including implementing a more thorough surveillance system to track long COVID cases, building better ventilation systems in hospitals and buildings to reduce the spread of the virus, increasing vaccination efforts as new viral strains continuously emerge, and more funding for long COVID research to better quantify and qualify the disease’s impact.
 

Shaky Statistics, Inconsistent Surveillance

David Smith, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Diego, said more needs to be done to survey, quantify, and qualify the impacts of long COVID on the economy before practical solutions can be identified.

“Our surveillance system sucks,” Smith said. “I can see how many people test positive for COVID, but how many of those people have long COVID?”

Long COVID also doesn’t have a true definition or standard diagnosis, which complicates surveillance efforts. It includes a spectrum of symptoms such as shortness of breath, chronic fatigue, and brain fog that linger for 2-3 months after an acute infection. But there’s no “concrete case definition,” Smith said. “And not everybody’s long COVID is exactly the same as everybody else’s.”

As a result, epidemiologists can’t effectively characterize the disease, and health economists can’t measure its exact economic impact.

Few countries have established comprehensive surveillance systems to estimate the burden of long COVID at the population level.

The United States currently tracks new cases by measuring wastewater levels, which isn’t as comprehensive as the tracking that was done during the pandemic. But positive wastewater samples can’t tell us who is infected in an area, nor can it distinguish whether a visitor/tourist or resident is mostly contributing to the wastewater analysis — an important distinction in public health studies.

Wastewater surveillance is an excellent complement to traditional disease surveillance with advantages and disadvantages, but it shouldn’t be the sole way to measure disease.
 

What Research Best Informs the Debate?

A study by Economist Impact — a think tank that partners with corporations, foundations, NGOs, and governments to help drive policy — estimated between a 0.5% and 2.3% gross domestic product (GDP) loss across eight separate countries in 2024. The study included the United Kingdom and United States.

Meanwhile, Australian researchers recently detailed how long COVID-related reductions in labor supply affected its productivity and GDP from 2022 to 2024. The study found that long COVID could be costing the Australian economy about 0.5% of its GDP, which researchers deemed a conservative estimate.

Public health researchers in New Zealand used the estimate of GDP loss in Australia to measure their own potential losses and advocated for strengthening occupational support across all sectors to protect health.

But these studies can’t quite compare with what would have to be done for the United States economy.

“New Zealand is small ... and has an excellent public health system with good delivery of vaccines and treatments…so how do we compare that to us?” Smith said. “They do better in all of their public health metrics than we do.”
 

Measuring the Economic Impact

Gopi Shah Goda, PhD, a health economist and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, co-authored a 2023 study that found COVID-19 reduced the US labor force by about 500,000 people.

Plus, workers who missed a full week due to COVID-19 absences became 7% less likely to return to the labor force a year later compared with workers who didn’t miss work for health reasons. That amounts to 0.2% of the labor force, a significant number.

“Even a small percent of the labor force is a big number…it’s like an extra year of populating aging,” Goda said.

“Some people who get long COVID might have dropped out of the labor force anyway,” Goda added.

The study concluded that average individual earnings lost from long COVID were $9000, and the total lost labor supply amounted to $62 billion annually — about half the estimated productivity losses from cancer or diabetes.

But research into long COVID research continues to be underfunded compared with other health conditions, experts noted.

Cancer and diabetes both receive billions of research dollars annually from the National Institutes of Health. Long COVID research gets only a few million, according to Goda.
 

Informing Public Health Policy

When it comes to caring for patients with long COVID, the big issue facing every nation’s public policy leaders is how best to allocate limited health resources.

“Public health never has enough money ... Do they buy more vaccines? Do they do educational programs? Who do they target the most?” Smith said.

Though Smith thinks the best preventative measure is increased vaccination, vaccination rates remain low in the United States.

“Unfortunately, as last fall demonstrated, there’s a lot of vaccine indifference and skepticism,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.

Over the past year, only 14% of eligible children and 22% of adults received the 2023-2024 COVID vaccine boosters.

Schaffner said public health experts wrestle with ways to assure the public vaccines are safe and effective.

“They’re trying to provide a level of comfort that [getting vaccinated] is the socially appropriate thing to do,” which remains a significant challenge, Schaffner said.

Some people don’t have access to vaccines and comprehensive medical services because they lack insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare. And the United States still doesn’t distribute vaccines as well as other countries, Schaffner added.

“In other countries, every doctor’s office gets vaccines for free ... here, we have a large commercial enterprise that basically runs it…there are still populations who aren’t reached,” he said.

Long COVID clinics that have opened around the country have offered help to some patients with long COVID. A year and a half ago, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, established its Long COVID Care Center. Stanford University, Stanford, California, opened its Long COVID Clinic back in 2021. Vanderbilt University now has its own, as well — the Adult Post-COVID Clinic.

But these clinics have faced declining federal resources, forcing some to close and others to face questions about whether they will be able to continue to operate without more aggressive federal direction and policy planning.

“With some central direction, we could provide better supportive care for the many patients with long COVID out there,” Schaffner said.

For countries with universal healthcare systems, services such as occupational health, extended sick leave, extended time for disability, and workers’ compensation benefits are readily available.

But in the United States, it’s often left to the physicians and their patients to figure out a plan.

“I think we could make physicians more aware of options for their patients…for example, regularly check eligibility for workers compensation,” Schaffner said.
 

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