Federal Practitioner

Mr. Smith was once a nice guy.

These days, unfortunately, he’s anything but. The ravages of a neurodegenerative disease have left him demented, impulsive, and agitated.

His family is trying to find placement for him, and in the meantime I’m doing my best to keep his behavior controlled. Like many things in medicine, this is as much art as science. A tablet of this, a capsule of that, increase this slightly, add something for PRN use ... a witch’s brew of modern medicine.

Because of his worsening, his wife was calling us several times a week with updates, not in an annoying way but in an “I need help” way. I began answering the phone myself if I saw her number come up, because it was easier and faster for me to deal with her directly, and I knew she wasn’t calling for fun.

A few months ago I stopped a medication that didn’t seem to be doing much and started a different one.

And then things went quiet. His wife’s calls went from 3-4 a week to none.

This worried me. I mean, maybe the new medicine was working. ... but the sudden silence was deafening.

One week went by, then two ... I did a Google search to make sure he and his wife hadn’t died or been in the news.

Of course, I could have picked up the phone and called his wife, but why tempt fate?

Three weeks ... I was sure my MA, who handles far more calls than I do, had probably noticed this, too.

It would have been easy to mention it, but even with 16 years of school and 5 years of medical training, not to mention 3,000-4,000 years of hard-earned science behind me, there was the old grade school notion of jinxing myself. To say something is to invite trouble.

Four weeks. Finally, his wife called in and reached my MA. The medication had been working, but now was wearing off and the dose needed to be adjusted. So we did that.

Afterward I mentioned the time lapse to my MA, that I’d been afraid of jinxing it by saying something to her, and she told me she’d been thinking the same thing.

Funny when you think about it. We’re both educated people, believers in science, and (I hope) intelligent. We’re living in a (by human standards) technologically advanced time.

Yet, the old superstitions are still there, the idea that we somehow have magical control over time, space, random chance, and the actions of others by not talking about a phone call (or the lack of one).

Surprisingly (or maybe not), this is pretty normal. When on call we never say “quiet,” for fear of enraging the mysterious Call Gods. If needed, we use “the Q word.”

We still try not to walk under ladders, avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, carry good luck charms, cross fingers, and fight over wishbones.

Superstitions such as saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when someone sneezes are so ingrained into us that they’re now part of good manners and polite society.

I’ve worked in quite a few hospitals over the years. Not one of them had a room on any floor that ended in 13, always jumping from 12 to 14.

Civilization is roughly 10,000-15,000 years old. We have the internet and can travel to (relatively nearby) space and back. We have probes exploring — and even leaving — our solar system.

But it’s one thing to say a superstition is silly. It’s another to actually convince your primeval self of it.

I’m going to knock on wood now.

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

Mr. Smith was once a nice guy.

These days, unfortunately, he’s anything but. The ravages of a neurodegenerative disease have left him demented, impulsive, and agitated.

His family is trying to find placement for him, and in the meantime I’m doing my best to keep his behavior controlled. Like many things in medicine, this is as much art as science. A tablet of this, a capsule of that, increase this slightly, add something for PRN use ... a witch’s brew of modern medicine.

Because of his worsening, his wife was calling us several times a week with updates, not in an annoying way but in an “I need help” way. I began answering the phone myself if I saw her number come up, because it was easier and faster for me to deal with her directly, and I knew she wasn’t calling for fun.

A few months ago I stopped a medication that didn’t seem to be doing much and started a different one.

And then things went quiet. His wife’s calls went from 3-4 a week to none.

This worried me. I mean, maybe the new medicine was working. ... but the sudden silence was deafening.

One week went by, then two ... I did a Google search to make sure he and his wife hadn’t died or been in the news.

Of course, I could have picked up the phone and called his wife, but why tempt fate?

Three weeks ... I was sure my MA, who handles far more calls than I do, had probably noticed this, too.

It would have been easy to mention it, but even with 16 years of school and 5 years of medical training, not to mention 3,000-4,000 years of hard-earned science behind me, there was the old grade school notion of jinxing myself. To say something is to invite trouble.

Four weeks. Finally, his wife called in and reached my MA. The medication had been working, but now was wearing off and the dose needed to be adjusted. So we did that.

Afterward I mentioned the time lapse to my MA, that I’d been afraid of jinxing it by saying something to her, and she told me she’d been thinking the same thing.

Funny when you think about it. We’re both educated people, believers in science, and (I hope) intelligent. We’re living in a (by human standards) technologically advanced time.

Yet, the old superstitions are still there, the idea that we somehow have magical control over time, space, random chance, and the actions of others by not talking about a phone call (or the lack of one).

Surprisingly (or maybe not), this is pretty normal. When on call we never say “quiet,” for fear of enraging the mysterious Call Gods. If needed, we use “the Q word.”

We still try not to walk under ladders, avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, carry good luck charms, cross fingers, and fight over wishbones.

Superstitions such as saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when someone sneezes are so ingrained into us that they’re now part of good manners and polite society.

I’ve worked in quite a few hospitals over the years. Not one of them had a room on any floor that ended in 13, always jumping from 12 to 14.

Civilization is roughly 10,000-15,000 years old. We have the internet and can travel to (relatively nearby) space and back. We have probes exploring — and even leaving — our solar system.

But it’s one thing to say a superstition is silly. It’s another to actually convince your primeval self of it.

I’m going to knock on wood now.

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

Mr. Smith was once a nice guy.

These days, unfortunately, he’s anything but. The ravages of a neurodegenerative disease have left him demented, impulsive, and agitated.

His family is trying to find placement for him, and in the meantime I’m doing my best to keep his behavior controlled. Like many things in medicine, this is as much art as science. A tablet of this, a capsule of that, increase this slightly, add something for PRN use ... a witch’s brew of modern medicine.

Because of his worsening, his wife was calling us several times a week with updates, not in an annoying way but in an “I need help” way. I began answering the phone myself if I saw her number come up, because it was easier and faster for me to deal with her directly, and I knew she wasn’t calling for fun.

A few months ago I stopped a medication that didn’t seem to be doing much and started a different one.

And then things went quiet. His wife’s calls went from 3-4 a week to none.

This worried me. I mean, maybe the new medicine was working. ... but the sudden silence was deafening.

One week went by, then two ... I did a Google search to make sure he and his wife hadn’t died or been in the news.

Of course, I could have picked up the phone and called his wife, but why tempt fate?

Three weeks ... I was sure my MA, who handles far more calls than I do, had probably noticed this, too.

It would have been easy to mention it, but even with 16 years of school and 5 years of medical training, not to mention 3,000-4,000 years of hard-earned science behind me, there was the old grade school notion of jinxing myself. To say something is to invite trouble.

Four weeks. Finally, his wife called in and reached my MA. The medication had been working, but now was wearing off and the dose needed to be adjusted. So we did that.

Afterward I mentioned the time lapse to my MA, that I’d been afraid of jinxing it by saying something to her, and she told me she’d been thinking the same thing.

Funny when you think about it. We’re both educated people, believers in science, and (I hope) intelligent. We’re living in a (by human standards) technologically advanced time.

Yet, the old superstitions are still there, the idea that we somehow have magical control over time, space, random chance, and the actions of others by not talking about a phone call (or the lack of one).

Surprisingly (or maybe not), this is pretty normal. When on call we never say “quiet,” for fear of enraging the mysterious Call Gods. If needed, we use “the Q word.”

We still try not to walk under ladders, avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, carry good luck charms, cross fingers, and fight over wishbones.

Superstitions such as saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when someone sneezes are so ingrained into us that they’re now part of good manners and polite society.

I’ve worked in quite a few hospitals over the years. Not one of them had a room on any floor that ended in 13, always jumping from 12 to 14.

Civilization is roughly 10,000-15,000 years old. We have the internet and can travel to (relatively nearby) space and back. We have probes exploring — and even leaving — our solar system.

But it’s one thing to say a superstition is silly. It’s another to actually convince your primeval self of it.

I’m going to knock on wood now.

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

Overall cancer mortality in the United States has continued to decline, with more than 4 million cancer deaths averted since 1991, according to the 2024 American Cancer Society (ACS) annual report on cancer trends.

The “good news is that we are continuing to see a decline in cancer mortality,” which follows the steady decline we’ve observed in cancer mortality over the past three decades, Rebecca Siegel, MPH, with ACS, and lead author of the new report, told this news organization.

However, these gains are “threatened by increasing incidence for many common cancers, including 6 of the top 10 most commonly diagnosed cancers,” Ms. Siegel said.

Overall, new cancer diagnoses are projected to top 2 million in 2024. That’s an average of 5480 new diagnoses each day or one person diagnosed every 15 seconds.

“In the US, the way our healthcare system is designed, we like to treat more than we like to prevent disease, and I would personally like to see a shift towards more emphasis on cancer prevention,” she added.

The full report was published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Cancer Hitting at Younger Ages

Although advancing age remains the strongest determinate of cancer risk, the new data showed that cancer incidence is steadily increasing in younger populations.

What’s most alarming is the increase in cancer diagnoses in adults under 50 years.

Between 2015 and 2019, incidence rates increased by 0.6%-1% annually for breast, pancreas, and uterine corpus cancers, by 1%-2% annually for cervical cancer in women between 30 and 44 years, and by 2%-3% annually for prostate, kidney, melanoma, and human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers, as well as liver cancer in women.

The continuing rise in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in younger adults, in particular, is “very concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, and has shifted mortality patterns among adults younger than 50 years.

In this group, CRC is now the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second-leading cause in women behind breast cancer — up from the fourth leading cause of cancer death in both younger men and women 2 decades ago.

The obesity epidemic is likely a contributing factor in rising CRC rates, “but it’s not the whole story,” Ms. Siegel told this news organization. “A lot of work is going on to try to uncover what exactly is causing an increased risk of colorectal cancer.”

The proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 50-64 years has also increased — from 25% in 1995 to 30% in 2019-2020 — while the proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 65 years and older fell from 61% to 58% in that time frame. Among this older population, the authors observed steep declines in the incidence of prostate cancer and smoking-related cancers.

“Every generation born after the 1950s has had higher cancer risk than the previous generation. That tells us is that there is some exposure that is yet unknown that is causing this increased risk,” Ms. Siegel noted.

To halt and reverse this trend, it will be important to increase screening uptake as well as awareness of noninvasive stool tests and follow-up care in younger adults, Ahmedin Jemal, PhD, with ACS, commented in a press release.

Other key findings in the report include the sharp decline in cervical cancer incidence rates in women in their 20s — the first cohort to receive the HPV vaccine — but increases of nearly 2% in women 30-44 years, highlighting the need for more screening in young women as well as broader uptake of the vaccine, the authors said.

After decades of increases, cancer incidence in children has leveled off, although rates continue to increase among adolescents aged 15-19 years. The largest increase was a 4% per year rise in thyroid cancer, much of which is likely due to overdiagnosis.

On the survival front, uterine cancer is the only cancer for which survival decreased over the past few decades.

Progress against cancer has been hampered by persistent and widespread cancer disparities. Mortality rates are twofold higher among Black patients with prostate, stomach, and endometrial cancers than among White patients, and twofold higher among Native Americans with liver, stomach, and kidney cancers.

Black women are more often diagnosed at more advanced stages (44% vs 23%) and have worse 5‐year survival rates (63% vs 84%) than White women.

“This report underscores the need for public policy interventions to help reduce these cancer disparities and save more lives,” Lisa Lacasse, with the ACS Cancer Action Network, said in the release. “We urge lawmakers at all levels of government to advance policies that ensure more people have health insurance coverage as well as improved access to and affordability of care, such as increased funding for cancer research and screening programs.”

The authors of a linked editorial noted that while the report shows continued progress in oncology overall, certain ethnic, racial, age, and geographic populations face a disproportionate burden of cancer incidence and mortality.

“Like others, we find these health disparities wholly unacceptable and agree with the National Cancer Plan and Biden Moonshot Initiative that bold and new collaborations and thinking will be needed to produce different outcomes,” the editorialists said.

Overall, the editorialists noted, “every 15 seconds presents a real reminder of the urgency to end cancer as we know it for everyone.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overall cancer mortality in the United States has continued to decline, with more than 4 million cancer deaths averted since 1991, according to the 2024 American Cancer Society (ACS) annual report on cancer trends.

The “good news is that we are continuing to see a decline in cancer mortality,” which follows the steady decline we’ve observed in cancer mortality over the past three decades, Rebecca Siegel, MPH, with ACS, and lead author of the new report, told this news organization.

However, these gains are “threatened by increasing incidence for many common cancers, including 6 of the top 10 most commonly diagnosed cancers,” Ms. Siegel said.

Overall, new cancer diagnoses are projected to top 2 million in 2024. That’s an average of 5480 new diagnoses each day or one person diagnosed every 15 seconds.

“In the US, the way our healthcare system is designed, we like to treat more than we like to prevent disease, and I would personally like to see a shift towards more emphasis on cancer prevention,” she added.

The full report was published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Cancer Hitting at Younger Ages

Although advancing age remains the strongest determinate of cancer risk, the new data showed that cancer incidence is steadily increasing in younger populations.

What’s most alarming is the increase in cancer diagnoses in adults under 50 years.

Between 2015 and 2019, incidence rates increased by 0.6%-1% annually for breast, pancreas, and uterine corpus cancers, by 1%-2% annually for cervical cancer in women between 30 and 44 years, and by 2%-3% annually for prostate, kidney, melanoma, and human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers, as well as liver cancer in women.

The continuing rise in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in younger adults, in particular, is “very concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, and has shifted mortality patterns among adults younger than 50 years.

In this group, CRC is now the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second-leading cause in women behind breast cancer — up from the fourth leading cause of cancer death in both younger men and women 2 decades ago.

The obesity epidemic is likely a contributing factor in rising CRC rates, “but it’s not the whole story,” Ms. Siegel told this news organization. “A lot of work is going on to try to uncover what exactly is causing an increased risk of colorectal cancer.”

The proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 50-64 years has also increased — from 25% in 1995 to 30% in 2019-2020 — while the proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 65 years and older fell from 61% to 58% in that time frame. Among this older population, the authors observed steep declines in the incidence of prostate cancer and smoking-related cancers.

“Every generation born after the 1950s has had higher cancer risk than the previous generation. That tells us is that there is some exposure that is yet unknown that is causing this increased risk,” Ms. Siegel noted.

To halt and reverse this trend, it will be important to increase screening uptake as well as awareness of noninvasive stool tests and follow-up care in younger adults, Ahmedin Jemal, PhD, with ACS, commented in a press release.

Other key findings in the report include the sharp decline in cervical cancer incidence rates in women in their 20s — the first cohort to receive the HPV vaccine — but increases of nearly 2% in women 30-44 years, highlighting the need for more screening in young women as well as broader uptake of the vaccine, the authors said.

After decades of increases, cancer incidence in children has leveled off, although rates continue to increase among adolescents aged 15-19 years. The largest increase was a 4% per year rise in thyroid cancer, much of which is likely due to overdiagnosis.

On the survival front, uterine cancer is the only cancer for which survival decreased over the past few decades.

Progress against cancer has been hampered by persistent and widespread cancer disparities. Mortality rates are twofold higher among Black patients with prostate, stomach, and endometrial cancers than among White patients, and twofold higher among Native Americans with liver, stomach, and kidney cancers.

Black women are more often diagnosed at more advanced stages (44% vs 23%) and have worse 5‐year survival rates (63% vs 84%) than White women.

“This report underscores the need for public policy interventions to help reduce these cancer disparities and save more lives,” Lisa Lacasse, with the ACS Cancer Action Network, said in the release. “We urge lawmakers at all levels of government to advance policies that ensure more people have health insurance coverage as well as improved access to and affordability of care, such as increased funding for cancer research and screening programs.”

The authors of a linked editorial noted that while the report shows continued progress in oncology overall, certain ethnic, racial, age, and geographic populations face a disproportionate burden of cancer incidence and mortality.

“Like others, we find these health disparities wholly unacceptable and agree with the National Cancer Plan and Biden Moonshot Initiative that bold and new collaborations and thinking will be needed to produce different outcomes,” the editorialists said.

Overall, the editorialists noted, “every 15 seconds presents a real reminder of the urgency to end cancer as we know it for everyone.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overall cancer mortality in the United States has continued to decline, with more than 4 million cancer deaths averted since 1991, according to the 2024 American Cancer Society (ACS) annual report on cancer trends.

The “good news is that we are continuing to see a decline in cancer mortality,” which follows the steady decline we’ve observed in cancer mortality over the past three decades, Rebecca Siegel, MPH, with ACS, and lead author of the new report, told this news organization.

However, these gains are “threatened by increasing incidence for many common cancers, including 6 of the top 10 most commonly diagnosed cancers,” Ms. Siegel said.

Overall, new cancer diagnoses are projected to top 2 million in 2024. That’s an average of 5480 new diagnoses each day or one person diagnosed every 15 seconds.

“In the US, the way our healthcare system is designed, we like to treat more than we like to prevent disease, and I would personally like to see a shift towards more emphasis on cancer prevention,” she added.

The full report was published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Cancer Hitting at Younger Ages

Although advancing age remains the strongest determinate of cancer risk, the new data showed that cancer incidence is steadily increasing in younger populations.

What’s most alarming is the increase in cancer diagnoses in adults under 50 years.

Between 2015 and 2019, incidence rates increased by 0.6%-1% annually for breast, pancreas, and uterine corpus cancers, by 1%-2% annually for cervical cancer in women between 30 and 44 years, and by 2%-3% annually for prostate, kidney, melanoma, and human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers, as well as liver cancer in women.

The continuing rise in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in younger adults, in particular, is “very concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, and has shifted mortality patterns among adults younger than 50 years.

In this group, CRC is now the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second-leading cause in women behind breast cancer — up from the fourth leading cause of cancer death in both younger men and women 2 decades ago.

The obesity epidemic is likely a contributing factor in rising CRC rates, “but it’s not the whole story,” Ms. Siegel told this news organization. “A lot of work is going on to try to uncover what exactly is causing an increased risk of colorectal cancer.”

The proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 50-64 years has also increased — from 25% in 1995 to 30% in 2019-2020 — while the proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 65 years and older fell from 61% to 58% in that time frame. Among this older population, the authors observed steep declines in the incidence of prostate cancer and smoking-related cancers.

“Every generation born after the 1950s has had higher cancer risk than the previous generation. That tells us is that there is some exposure that is yet unknown that is causing this increased risk,” Ms. Siegel noted.

To halt and reverse this trend, it will be important to increase screening uptake as well as awareness of noninvasive stool tests and follow-up care in younger adults, Ahmedin Jemal, PhD, with ACS, commented in a press release.

Other key findings in the report include the sharp decline in cervical cancer incidence rates in women in their 20s — the first cohort to receive the HPV vaccine — but increases of nearly 2% in women 30-44 years, highlighting the need for more screening in young women as well as broader uptake of the vaccine, the authors said.

After decades of increases, cancer incidence in children has leveled off, although rates continue to increase among adolescents aged 15-19 years. The largest increase was a 4% per year rise in thyroid cancer, much of which is likely due to overdiagnosis.

On the survival front, uterine cancer is the only cancer for which survival decreased over the past few decades.

Progress against cancer has been hampered by persistent and widespread cancer disparities. Mortality rates are twofold higher among Black patients with prostate, stomach, and endometrial cancers than among White patients, and twofold higher among Native Americans with liver, stomach, and kidney cancers.

Black women are more often diagnosed at more advanced stages (44% vs 23%) and have worse 5‐year survival rates (63% vs 84%) than White women.

“This report underscores the need for public policy interventions to help reduce these cancer disparities and save more lives,” Lisa Lacasse, with the ACS Cancer Action Network, said in the release. “We urge lawmakers at all levels of government to advance policies that ensure more people have health insurance coverage as well as improved access to and affordability of care, such as increased funding for cancer research and screening programs.”

The authors of a linked editorial noted that while the report shows continued progress in oncology overall, certain ethnic, racial, age, and geographic populations face a disproportionate burden of cancer incidence and mortality.

“Like others, we find these health disparities wholly unacceptable and agree with the National Cancer Plan and Biden Moonshot Initiative that bold and new collaborations and thinking will be needed to produce different outcomes,” the editorialists said.

Overall, the editorialists noted, “every 15 seconds presents a real reminder of the urgency to end cancer as we know it for everyone.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who habitually add salt to their meals at the table may unknowingly be risking their kidneys, according to a study utilizing UK Biobank data. Chronic salt additions are associated with an elevated risk of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD), as revealed by researchers led by Rui Tang, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

Large Study Sample

In a population-based cohort study comprising over 460,000 UK Biobank participants aged 37-73 years, the researchers explored the association between adding table salt to food and increased CKD risk.

Participants indicated how often they added salt to their meals: Never or rarely, sometimes, often, or always. The follow-up period exceeded a decade, and median duration was 11.8 years. During this time, approximately 22,000 new CKD cases were documented. Data analysis revealed a significantly higher CKD risk among those who frequently added salt.

The extent of risk elevation varied with the frequency of salt additions. Even occasional salters had a 7% higher risk than those who never or rarely added salt. For frequent salters, the risk increased by 12%, and for those who always added salt, it rose to 29%. These results were adjusted for age and gender.

Worse Overall Health

The research group noted that individuals who frequently added salt were generally less healthy, adopting an unhealthier lifestyle and having lower socioeconomic status. They exhibited higher body mass index (BMI), were more likely to smoke, had diabetes or cardiovascular diseases, and had reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at the beginning of the study. Moreover, their Townsend Deprivation Index, indicating material deprivation, was higher.

Considering these factors, the researchers adjusted the results not only for age and gender but also for ethnicity, Townsend Deprivation Index, eGFR, BMI, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, elevated cholesterol levels, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, infectious diseases, immune system disorders, and the use of nephrotoxic medications.

Association Persists

Even after accounting for these factors, a significant, albeit attenuated, association between salt additions and CKD risk remained. The risk increased by 2% for occasional salters, 5% for frequent salters, and 6% for those who always added salt.

The research group concluded that adding salt to meals could be associated with an increased risk for CKD in the general population. However, they highlighted several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the study results.

Reducing Salt 

Primarily, self-reported frequency of salt addition doesn’t precisely reflect actual salt consumption. While earlier studies validated the accuracy of this variable, the researchers acknowledged the possibility that frequent salt addition may merely be a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle.

Nevertheless, the authors speculated that reducing the frequency of salt additions to meals could contribute to lowering CKD risk in the general population. They suggested validating their results in post hoc analyses or follow-up studies from clinical trials.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who habitually add salt to their meals at the table may unknowingly be risking their kidneys, according to a study utilizing UK Biobank data. Chronic salt additions are associated with an elevated risk of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD), as revealed by researchers led by Rui Tang, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

Large Study Sample

In a population-based cohort study comprising over 460,000 UK Biobank participants aged 37-73 years, the researchers explored the association between adding table salt to food and increased CKD risk.

Participants indicated how often they added salt to their meals: Never or rarely, sometimes, often, or always. The follow-up period exceeded a decade, and median duration was 11.8 years. During this time, approximately 22,000 new CKD cases were documented. Data analysis revealed a significantly higher CKD risk among those who frequently added salt.

The extent of risk elevation varied with the frequency of salt additions. Even occasional salters had a 7% higher risk than those who never or rarely added salt. For frequent salters, the risk increased by 12%, and for those who always added salt, it rose to 29%. These results were adjusted for age and gender.

Worse Overall Health

The research group noted that individuals who frequently added salt were generally less healthy, adopting an unhealthier lifestyle and having lower socioeconomic status. They exhibited higher body mass index (BMI), were more likely to smoke, had diabetes or cardiovascular diseases, and had reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at the beginning of the study. Moreover, their Townsend Deprivation Index, indicating material deprivation, was higher.

Considering these factors, the researchers adjusted the results not only for age and gender but also for ethnicity, Townsend Deprivation Index, eGFR, BMI, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, elevated cholesterol levels, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, infectious diseases, immune system disorders, and the use of nephrotoxic medications.

Association Persists

Even after accounting for these factors, a significant, albeit attenuated, association between salt additions and CKD risk remained. The risk increased by 2% for occasional salters, 5% for frequent salters, and 6% for those who always added salt.

The research group concluded that adding salt to meals could be associated with an increased risk for CKD in the general population. However, they highlighted several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the study results.

Reducing Salt 

Primarily, self-reported frequency of salt addition doesn’t precisely reflect actual salt consumption. While earlier studies validated the accuracy of this variable, the researchers acknowledged the possibility that frequent salt addition may merely be a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle.

Nevertheless, the authors speculated that reducing the frequency of salt additions to meals could contribute to lowering CKD risk in the general population. They suggested validating their results in post hoc analyses or follow-up studies from clinical trials.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who habitually add salt to their meals at the table may unknowingly be risking their kidneys, according to a study utilizing UK Biobank data. Chronic salt additions are associated with an elevated risk of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD), as revealed by researchers led by Rui Tang, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

Large Study Sample

In a population-based cohort study comprising over 460,000 UK Biobank participants aged 37-73 years, the researchers explored the association between adding table salt to food and increased CKD risk.

Participants indicated how often they added salt to their meals: Never or rarely, sometimes, often, or always. The follow-up period exceeded a decade, and median duration was 11.8 years. During this time, approximately 22,000 new CKD cases were documented. Data analysis revealed a significantly higher CKD risk among those who frequently added salt.

The extent of risk elevation varied with the frequency of salt additions. Even occasional salters had a 7% higher risk than those who never or rarely added salt. For frequent salters, the risk increased by 12%, and for those who always added salt, it rose to 29%. These results were adjusted for age and gender.

Worse Overall Health

The research group noted that individuals who frequently added salt were generally less healthy, adopting an unhealthier lifestyle and having lower socioeconomic status. They exhibited higher body mass index (BMI), were more likely to smoke, had diabetes or cardiovascular diseases, and had reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at the beginning of the study. Moreover, their Townsend Deprivation Index, indicating material deprivation, was higher.

Considering these factors, the researchers adjusted the results not only for age and gender but also for ethnicity, Townsend Deprivation Index, eGFR, BMI, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, elevated cholesterol levels, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, infectious diseases, immune system disorders, and the use of nephrotoxic medications.

Association Persists

Even after accounting for these factors, a significant, albeit attenuated, association between salt additions and CKD risk remained. The risk increased by 2% for occasional salters, 5% for frequent salters, and 6% for those who always added salt.

The research group concluded that adding salt to meals could be associated with an increased risk for CKD in the general population. However, they highlighted several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the study results.

Reducing Salt 

Primarily, self-reported frequency of salt addition doesn’t precisely reflect actual salt consumption. While earlier studies validated the accuracy of this variable, the researchers acknowledged the possibility that frequent salt addition may merely be a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle.

Nevertheless, the authors speculated that reducing the frequency of salt additions to meals could contribute to lowering CKD risk in the general population. They suggested validating their results in post hoc analyses or follow-up studies from clinical trials.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data provide no support for an increased risk for pancreatic cancer with use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for up to 7 years, although longer-term data are needed, researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies have raised concern about a possible increased risk for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking a GLP-1 RA. 
• Investigators behind this population-based cohort study assessed the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with pancreatic cancer incidence over a median of 7 years in 543,595 adults (mean age, 59.9 years; 51% women) with type 2 diabetes. 
• Treatment with basal insulin was used as an active comparator. 
• The analyses accounted for major confounding factors and time-related biases and adjusted for treatment with other glucose-lowering medications and a history of pancreatitis. 

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 33,377 patients (6.1%) used GLP-1 RAs and 106,849 (19.7%) used basal insulin, with 1665 of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 
• There was no evidence that GLP-1 RA use increased pancreatic cancer risk compared with basal insulin. 
• The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for pancreatic cancer associated with incremental use of one defined daily dose per day of GLP-1 RA compared with basal insulin in years 5-7 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.71). 
• New-user and prevalent new-user analyses showed HRs from year 5 onward following initiation of a GLP-1 RA vs basal insulin was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.19-1.41) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.53), respectively. 

IN PRACTICE: 

Using several analytical approaches, these findings do not suggest an increase in pancreatic cancer incidence over 7 years following the start of GLP-1 RA treatment, according to the investigation. “However, monitoring for pancreatic cancer risk beyond 7 years following initiation of treatment is still required,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rachel Dankner, MD, MPH, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Israel, was published online on January 4, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on the exact type of GLP-1 RA were not available. The analyses accounted for history of pancreatitis but not alcohol use or exposure to pesticides/chemicals. Because of the risk for bias due to reverse causation, an emphasis was placed on drug effects several years after their initiation. However, this reduced the number of pancreatic cancer cases available and led to estimated HRs with wider CIs. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data provide no support for an increased risk for pancreatic cancer with use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for up to 7 years, although longer-term data are needed, researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies have raised concern about a possible increased risk for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking a GLP-1 RA. 
• Investigators behind this population-based cohort study assessed the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with pancreatic cancer incidence over a median of 7 years in 543,595 adults (mean age, 59.9 years; 51% women) with type 2 diabetes. 
• Treatment with basal insulin was used as an active comparator. 
• The analyses accounted for major confounding factors and time-related biases and adjusted for treatment with other glucose-lowering medications and a history of pancreatitis. 

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 33,377 patients (6.1%) used GLP-1 RAs and 106,849 (19.7%) used basal insulin, with 1665 of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 
• There was no evidence that GLP-1 RA use increased pancreatic cancer risk compared with basal insulin. 
• The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for pancreatic cancer associated with incremental use of one defined daily dose per day of GLP-1 RA compared with basal insulin in years 5-7 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.71). 
• New-user and prevalent new-user analyses showed HRs from year 5 onward following initiation of a GLP-1 RA vs basal insulin was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.19-1.41) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.53), respectively. 

IN PRACTICE: 

Using several analytical approaches, these findings do not suggest an increase in pancreatic cancer incidence over 7 years following the start of GLP-1 RA treatment, according to the investigation. “However, monitoring for pancreatic cancer risk beyond 7 years following initiation of treatment is still required,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rachel Dankner, MD, MPH, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Israel, was published online on January 4, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on the exact type of GLP-1 RA were not available. The analyses accounted for history of pancreatitis but not alcohol use or exposure to pesticides/chemicals. Because of the risk for bias due to reverse causation, an emphasis was placed on drug effects several years after their initiation. However, this reduced the number of pancreatic cancer cases available and led to estimated HRs with wider CIs. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data provide no support for an increased risk for pancreatic cancer with use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for up to 7 years, although longer-term data are needed, researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies have raised concern about a possible increased risk for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking a GLP-1 RA. 
• Investigators behind this population-based cohort study assessed the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with pancreatic cancer incidence over a median of 7 years in 543,595 adults (mean age, 59.9 years; 51% women) with type 2 diabetes. 
• Treatment with basal insulin was used as an active comparator. 
• The analyses accounted for major confounding factors and time-related biases and adjusted for treatment with other glucose-lowering medications and a history of pancreatitis. 

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 33,377 patients (6.1%) used GLP-1 RAs and 106,849 (19.7%) used basal insulin, with 1665 of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 
• There was no evidence that GLP-1 RA use increased pancreatic cancer risk compared with basal insulin. 
• The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for pancreatic cancer associated with incremental use of one defined daily dose per day of GLP-1 RA compared with basal insulin in years 5-7 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.71). 
• New-user and prevalent new-user analyses showed HRs from year 5 onward following initiation of a GLP-1 RA vs basal insulin was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.19-1.41) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.53), respectively. 

IN PRACTICE: 

Using several analytical approaches, these findings do not suggest an increase in pancreatic cancer incidence over 7 years following the start of GLP-1 RA treatment, according to the investigation. “However, monitoring for pancreatic cancer risk beyond 7 years following initiation of treatment is still required,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rachel Dankner, MD, MPH, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Israel, was published online on January 4, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on the exact type of GLP-1 RA were not available. The analyses accounted for history of pancreatitis but not alcohol use or exposure to pesticides/chemicals. Because of the risk for bias due to reverse causation, an emphasis was placed on drug effects several years after their initiation. However, this reduced the number of pancreatic cancer cases available and led to estimated HRs with wider CIs. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This interview was recorded Dec. 8, 2023. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I have the pleasure of talking with Dr. Elizabeth Loder today. Dr. Loder is the vice chair of academic affairs in the department of neurology and a staff physician at Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She’s also a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and has been a mentor to many headache specialists in the field.

We’ll be talking about the topic of sexism in medicine.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH: Thank you so much, Dr. LaFaver. I’m very pleased to be here to talk about something that I think is very important.

Dr. LaFaver: Dr. Loder, you were a speaker at our Women in Neurology third annual conference in Florida, giving a talk on this very topic, sexism in medicine. It was very helpful, especially for many younger women entering the field of neurology, to hear that some of the experiences they’re having are not unique to them, but unfortunately remain a more systemic issue.

To get us started, could you define sexism in medicine for us, and how you got interested in this topic?
 

Sexism Can Be Subtle

Dr. Loder: You’re absolutely right. Sexism is still there. It might be a bit more subtle than it used to be at the beginning of my career, but it’s definitely still there. It’s nice for women, particularly those entering the field, to know that they’re not alone.

What is sexism? Well, it’s generally considered to be prejudice or discrimination against someone based on their sex or gender. One thing that’s important to remember is it’s not always extremely obvious. It’s not always intentional. I think most of us, I’d include myself in that, have sexist views. We may not always be aware of them. This is part of the unconscious bias that many of us have been trained to think.

As one example, we’re socialized — or I certainly was — to think of doctors as male. When a patient says, “I saw a cardiologist,” in my mind, I think that that person might have been male. Sometimes, I will ask, “What did he say?” That’s an example of sexism.

Sexism can be internalized. It can come from any source. We’re all implicated in it. I think that’s very important to remember. This is not a case of them doing something to us. This is something that is much more widespread and engendered in the society that we live in.

Dr. LaFaver: I think that’s really important to realize. Could you mention some other examples, specifically in the field of neurology, that you have encountered?

Dr. Loder: Certainly, looking over my own career — and I’m at a point now where I can look at early, mid, and late career — things were, of course, very different when I began. I would say that sexism was much more overt.

Very early in my career, I experienced a large amount of hostility from a boss. I ended up having to leave. This was, I believe, based on my sex. It turned out that leaving was a good thing for me, but it was a very unpleasant experience.

I also became a leader in my professional society. During my path to leadership and seeing other women attempt to make progress within the organization, I certainly saw behavior that I would characterize as rooted in sexism. To its credit, though, the professional society to which I belong, I think, has become one of the most progressive societies out there. The women within have been able to affect quite a bit of change in that professional organization.

I dealt with a case of sexual harassment in my own division when I was a division chief, which gave me insight into institutional policies and procedures meant to deal with situations like that, which, I think, leave something to be desired. That’s changing.

Now, I work in academic affairs, and I see how likely or unlikely people, based on their sex, are to put themselves forward for promotion, how likely they are to believe in their own capabilities. I also work as a medical journal editor, and I see generally that women are more hesitant to proclaim themselves experts and to accept invitations to provide or write editorial commentary. Sometimes, they do not perceive themselves as being expert enough to do so. I have seen many of these things over my career.

Dr. LaFaver: Thank you for sharing. I think it’s important to realize that it›s not just unidirectional but sometimes affects women and kind of goes both ways.

As you mentioned, these issues are not always overt. In recent years, microaggressions has become more of a term that has been used. Could you talk a bit about that? What are the microaggressions and how do they affect women?
 

Microaggressions and Migraine Mavens

Dr. Loder: The term microaggression has become very popular, and I think many people find it somewhat irritating. That, to me, is inherent in what a microaggression is. Microaggressions, by definition, are small things. It’s hard to prove that they were rooted in sexism. Sometimes, there’s a large amount of ambiguity about it. It can be as simple as inviting a pregnant woman to sit down because you perceive that she needs to sit, commenting on somebody’s shoes, or things like that.

Often, they’re unintentional. Sometimes, they come from a place of what we might term benevolent sexism, people trying to be helpful to a woman because they perceive that she’s weaker or she might not be able to do something, or maybe she has family responsibilities. They think that they’re being helpful. These things happen when we perceive people to be different in some way, as women are perceived to be different in terms of their responsibilities in the home or different in terms of what we expect from them in the workplace.

The problem with microaggressions is because they’re small, each one of them, I think the temptation is often to say, “Oh you know, they didn’t mean it. It’s not that big a deal. It was just a comment on your shoes.” If a woman brings that up, she’s often made to feel, sometimes by other women, that she should just chill out. This isn’t a big deal.

The problem is that they may not be a big deal in and of themselves, but when they are repeated over a long period of time, they can really sap somebody’s confidence in herself, make her question her own competence, and can have a cumulative effect that is very negative.

Although I think many people are skeptical about microaggressions as an important contribution to how women do in the workplace and in other settings, they are, in my opinion, important. I’ll just emphasize again that they come from everywhere, including other women and colleagues who mean to be helpful.

Dr. LaFaver: I know you have led a team of headache specialists and wrote a fantastic article about navigating sexism at work and what not to say to your female colleagues. Could you share some tips for them to navigate sexism at work and, specifically, as it applies to our careers in medicine.

Dr. Loder: Thank you for calling out that article. It actually grew organically out of a Facebook group that I started called Migraine Mavens. I’ve worked in the headache field throughout my career, and I experienced something that, to me, was kind of discouraging that I felt was sexist within our field. I just thought, What can I do? I thought, Well, maybe there’s some strength to be had in sharing this with other women, and maybe we should have our own social media community, so I formed this group.

After I gave a talk at the American Headache Society about sexism in the headache field, one of the members sent me a message saying, “Your talk was very timely. Immediately after you gave this talk, somebody stopped me in the hall and said, ‘Congratulations on your leadership position in the society, but are you really sure you can do this because you’ve got young children at home?’ Your talk was very needed.”

People started just discussing within the group, “Oh, this happened to me,” “That happened to me.” We began to brainstorm what we could have done differently. When these things happen, people are not necessarily prepared for them, and later on, you lie awake thinking of what you could have said.

We decided to write a paper. It ended up being published in The Journal of Head and Face Pain, and it was based on real vignettes from people in the group. We anonymized them so that people would not recognize themselves necessarily, but they’re all real. They’re things that really happened to women in the group.

We first describe the vignette — what happened. Then we explain, for those who need the explanation, what’s wrong with it. Why is it wrong to tell somebody to smile, for example. What could you do differently? What could somebody who sees this happen do, the so-called bystander or upstander? If you witness something like that, can you help the person toward whom this problematic behavior is directed? We came up with some examples. The all-purpose thing is to say, “What did you just say?” Make them repeat it, which often helps people to realize how inappropriate it is.

This got published as an article. It became quite the subject of attention on X [formerly Twitter] and elsewhere. I guess the term going viral would apply to this. It included a large amount of real-world advice. The thing I really loved about it was that it was written by the women in the group who had experienced these things. I would characterize it as having been somewhat therapeutic. We got many messages from women in other disciplines, outside medicine, saying that this happens in oceanography, for example. I think what we described really resonated beyond the field of headache medicine and neurology.
 

Institutional Sexism

Dr. LaFaver: Looking beyond the individual person, do you have any recommendations for medical institutions to share in order to do better and maybe create an environment that is less sexist?

Dr. Loder: Yes. I think many institutions try to deal with the problem of lack of diversity, whether it›s women or other underrepresented groups, by hiring. That’s one way to go about it, but I think retention strategies are also very important, and they need to pay attention to the work environment.

Every institution now has guidelines about harassment, bullying, sexism, racism, and so on. In general though — and I’m not speaking about any particular institution — these policies and procedures are often crafted with an eye toward protecting the institution. I would advise institutions to be a bit more genuine about this, and not to think so quickly about what can we do to prevent the institution from facing a charge of sexism, or what can we do to deny or dismiss these allegations, toward thinking, what can we do to really and truly be helpful to these women? In other words, approach it from the point of view of trying to help the people involved instead of trying to help the institution. That will make a very big difference.

I also think that citizenship activities, serving on committees, doing thankless tasks behind the scenes, and clinical work, seeing patients ... Women are overrepresented among clinicians. Of course, we know that research and bringing in big grants is often prioritized over clinical care, despite what institutions may say about that in public. I think those activities should be valued more highly, both in terms of pay and in terms of academic recognition.

In regard to the issue of salary, I would encourage institutions to publish salaries or at least make them easily findable by people within the institution. I think there should be objective criteria for salary determinations. The most important thing is that I do not think that women should be expected to negotiate their salaries. Women are judged differently than men when they attempt to negotiate salaries. It often backfires for them. It also is something that many women do not feel comfortable doing.

Waiting until somebody tries to negotiate a higher salary really guarantees, embeds, and operationalizes sex differences in salaries. We need to move away from the idea that you have to be a go-getter and that you have to ask for this raise. There should be objective criteria, salaries should be revisited on a regular basis, and the kinds of activities that women do that are undervalued should be more recognized in terms of money and advancement within academia.

Dr. LaFaver: I couldn’t agree more. One of the other topics discussed at the Women in Neurology conference was mid-career development, retention, and career paths. I think it’s known that many women leave academic medicine mid-career. I think these are excellent suggestions and hopefully will help to make careers successful for men and women, without needing to worry about being treated differently or unfairly.

Thank you so much. This was a wonderful overview of this topic.

Dr. Loder: You’re welcome, Dr. LaFaver. Thank you so much for asking me to speak on this topic. I really appreciate it.

Dr. LaFaver: Thanks, everyone.

 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, New York. Dr. LaFaver and Dr. Loder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This interview was recorded Dec. 8, 2023. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I have the pleasure of talking with Dr. Elizabeth Loder today. Dr. Loder is the vice chair of academic affairs in the department of neurology and a staff physician at Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She’s also a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and has been a mentor to many headache specialists in the field.

We’ll be talking about the topic of sexism in medicine.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH: Thank you so much, Dr. LaFaver. I’m very pleased to be here to talk about something that I think is very important.

Dr. LaFaver: Dr. Loder, you were a speaker at our Women in Neurology third annual conference in Florida, giving a talk on this very topic, sexism in medicine. It was very helpful, especially for many younger women entering the field of neurology, to hear that some of the experiences they’re having are not unique to them, but unfortunately remain a more systemic issue.

To get us started, could you define sexism in medicine for us, and how you got interested in this topic?
 

Sexism Can Be Subtle

Dr. Loder: You’re absolutely right. Sexism is still there. It might be a bit more subtle than it used to be at the beginning of my career, but it’s definitely still there. It’s nice for women, particularly those entering the field, to know that they’re not alone.

What is sexism? Well, it’s generally considered to be prejudice or discrimination against someone based on their sex or gender. One thing that’s important to remember is it’s not always extremely obvious. It’s not always intentional. I think most of us, I’d include myself in that, have sexist views. We may not always be aware of them. This is part of the unconscious bias that many of us have been trained to think.

As one example, we’re socialized — or I certainly was — to think of doctors as male. When a patient says, “I saw a cardiologist,” in my mind, I think that that person might have been male. Sometimes, I will ask, “What did he say?” That’s an example of sexism.

Sexism can be internalized. It can come from any source. We’re all implicated in it. I think that’s very important to remember. This is not a case of them doing something to us. This is something that is much more widespread and engendered in the society that we live in.

Dr. LaFaver: I think that’s really important to realize. Could you mention some other examples, specifically in the field of neurology, that you have encountered?

Dr. Loder: Certainly, looking over my own career — and I’m at a point now where I can look at early, mid, and late career — things were, of course, very different when I began. I would say that sexism was much more overt.

Very early in my career, I experienced a large amount of hostility from a boss. I ended up having to leave. This was, I believe, based on my sex. It turned out that leaving was a good thing for me, but it was a very unpleasant experience.

I also became a leader in my professional society. During my path to leadership and seeing other women attempt to make progress within the organization, I certainly saw behavior that I would characterize as rooted in sexism. To its credit, though, the professional society to which I belong, I think, has become one of the most progressive societies out there. The women within have been able to affect quite a bit of change in that professional organization.

I dealt with a case of sexual harassment in my own division when I was a division chief, which gave me insight into institutional policies and procedures meant to deal with situations like that, which, I think, leave something to be desired. That’s changing.

Now, I work in academic affairs, and I see how likely or unlikely people, based on their sex, are to put themselves forward for promotion, how likely they are to believe in their own capabilities. I also work as a medical journal editor, and I see generally that women are more hesitant to proclaim themselves experts and to accept invitations to provide or write editorial commentary. Sometimes, they do not perceive themselves as being expert enough to do so. I have seen many of these things over my career.

Dr. LaFaver: Thank you for sharing. I think it’s important to realize that it›s not just unidirectional but sometimes affects women and kind of goes both ways.

As you mentioned, these issues are not always overt. In recent years, microaggressions has become more of a term that has been used. Could you talk a bit about that? What are the microaggressions and how do they affect women?
 

Microaggressions and Migraine Mavens

Dr. Loder: The term microaggression has become very popular, and I think many people find it somewhat irritating. That, to me, is inherent in what a microaggression is. Microaggressions, by definition, are small things. It’s hard to prove that they were rooted in sexism. Sometimes, there’s a large amount of ambiguity about it. It can be as simple as inviting a pregnant woman to sit down because you perceive that she needs to sit, commenting on somebody’s shoes, or things like that.

Often, they’re unintentional. Sometimes, they come from a place of what we might term benevolent sexism, people trying to be helpful to a woman because they perceive that she’s weaker or she might not be able to do something, or maybe she has family responsibilities. They think that they’re being helpful. These things happen when we perceive people to be different in some way, as women are perceived to be different in terms of their responsibilities in the home or different in terms of what we expect from them in the workplace.

The problem with microaggressions is because they’re small, each one of them, I think the temptation is often to say, “Oh you know, they didn’t mean it. It’s not that big a deal. It was just a comment on your shoes.” If a woman brings that up, she’s often made to feel, sometimes by other women, that she should just chill out. This isn’t a big deal.

The problem is that they may not be a big deal in and of themselves, but when they are repeated over a long period of time, they can really sap somebody’s confidence in herself, make her question her own competence, and can have a cumulative effect that is very negative.

Although I think many people are skeptical about microaggressions as an important contribution to how women do in the workplace and in other settings, they are, in my opinion, important. I’ll just emphasize again that they come from everywhere, including other women and colleagues who mean to be helpful.

Dr. LaFaver: I know you have led a team of headache specialists and wrote a fantastic article about navigating sexism at work and what not to say to your female colleagues. Could you share some tips for them to navigate sexism at work and, specifically, as it applies to our careers in medicine.

Dr. Loder: Thank you for calling out that article. It actually grew organically out of a Facebook group that I started called Migraine Mavens. I’ve worked in the headache field throughout my career, and I experienced something that, to me, was kind of discouraging that I felt was sexist within our field. I just thought, What can I do? I thought, Well, maybe there’s some strength to be had in sharing this with other women, and maybe we should have our own social media community, so I formed this group.

After I gave a talk at the American Headache Society about sexism in the headache field, one of the members sent me a message saying, “Your talk was very timely. Immediately after you gave this talk, somebody stopped me in the hall and said, ‘Congratulations on your leadership position in the society, but are you really sure you can do this because you’ve got young children at home?’ Your talk was very needed.”

People started just discussing within the group, “Oh, this happened to me,” “That happened to me.” We began to brainstorm what we could have done differently. When these things happen, people are not necessarily prepared for them, and later on, you lie awake thinking of what you could have said.

We decided to write a paper. It ended up being published in The Journal of Head and Face Pain, and it was based on real vignettes from people in the group. We anonymized them so that people would not recognize themselves necessarily, but they’re all real. They’re things that really happened to women in the group.

We first describe the vignette — what happened. Then we explain, for those who need the explanation, what’s wrong with it. Why is it wrong to tell somebody to smile, for example. What could you do differently? What could somebody who sees this happen do, the so-called bystander or upstander? If you witness something like that, can you help the person toward whom this problematic behavior is directed? We came up with some examples. The all-purpose thing is to say, “What did you just say?” Make them repeat it, which often helps people to realize how inappropriate it is.

This got published as an article. It became quite the subject of attention on X [formerly Twitter] and elsewhere. I guess the term going viral would apply to this. It included a large amount of real-world advice. The thing I really loved about it was that it was written by the women in the group who had experienced these things. I would characterize it as having been somewhat therapeutic. We got many messages from women in other disciplines, outside medicine, saying that this happens in oceanography, for example. I think what we described really resonated beyond the field of headache medicine and neurology.
 

Institutional Sexism

Dr. LaFaver: Looking beyond the individual person, do you have any recommendations for medical institutions to share in order to do better and maybe create an environment that is less sexist?

Dr. Loder: Yes. I think many institutions try to deal with the problem of lack of diversity, whether it›s women or other underrepresented groups, by hiring. That’s one way to go about it, but I think retention strategies are also very important, and they need to pay attention to the work environment.

Every institution now has guidelines about harassment, bullying, sexism, racism, and so on. In general though — and I’m not speaking about any particular institution — these policies and procedures are often crafted with an eye toward protecting the institution. I would advise institutions to be a bit more genuine about this, and not to think so quickly about what can we do to prevent the institution from facing a charge of sexism, or what can we do to deny or dismiss these allegations, toward thinking, what can we do to really and truly be helpful to these women? In other words, approach it from the point of view of trying to help the people involved instead of trying to help the institution. That will make a very big difference.

I also think that citizenship activities, serving on committees, doing thankless tasks behind the scenes, and clinical work, seeing patients ... Women are overrepresented among clinicians. Of course, we know that research and bringing in big grants is often prioritized over clinical care, despite what institutions may say about that in public. I think those activities should be valued more highly, both in terms of pay and in terms of academic recognition.

In regard to the issue of salary, I would encourage institutions to publish salaries or at least make them easily findable by people within the institution. I think there should be objective criteria for salary determinations. The most important thing is that I do not think that women should be expected to negotiate their salaries. Women are judged differently than men when they attempt to negotiate salaries. It often backfires for them. It also is something that many women do not feel comfortable doing.

Waiting until somebody tries to negotiate a higher salary really guarantees, embeds, and operationalizes sex differences in salaries. We need to move away from the idea that you have to be a go-getter and that you have to ask for this raise. There should be objective criteria, salaries should be revisited on a regular basis, and the kinds of activities that women do that are undervalued should be more recognized in terms of money and advancement within academia.

Dr. LaFaver: I couldn’t agree more. One of the other topics discussed at the Women in Neurology conference was mid-career development, retention, and career paths. I think it’s known that many women leave academic medicine mid-career. I think these are excellent suggestions and hopefully will help to make careers successful for men and women, without needing to worry about being treated differently or unfairly.

Thank you so much. This was a wonderful overview of this topic.

Dr. Loder: You’re welcome, Dr. LaFaver. Thank you so much for asking me to speak on this topic. I really appreciate it.

Dr. LaFaver: Thanks, everyone.

 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, New York. Dr. LaFaver and Dr. Loder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This interview was recorded Dec. 8, 2023. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I have the pleasure of talking with Dr. Elizabeth Loder today. Dr. Loder is the vice chair of academic affairs in the department of neurology and a staff physician at Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She’s also a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and has been a mentor to many headache specialists in the field.

We’ll be talking about the topic of sexism in medicine.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH: Thank you so much, Dr. LaFaver. I’m very pleased to be here to talk about something that I think is very important.

Dr. LaFaver: Dr. Loder, you were a speaker at our Women in Neurology third annual conference in Florida, giving a talk on this very topic, sexism in medicine. It was very helpful, especially for many younger women entering the field of neurology, to hear that some of the experiences they’re having are not unique to them, but unfortunately remain a more systemic issue.

To get us started, could you define sexism in medicine for us, and how you got interested in this topic?
 

Sexism Can Be Subtle

Dr. Loder: You’re absolutely right. Sexism is still there. It might be a bit more subtle than it used to be at the beginning of my career, but it’s definitely still there. It’s nice for women, particularly those entering the field, to know that they’re not alone.

What is sexism? Well, it’s generally considered to be prejudice or discrimination against someone based on their sex or gender. One thing that’s important to remember is it’s not always extremely obvious. It’s not always intentional. I think most of us, I’d include myself in that, have sexist views. We may not always be aware of them. This is part of the unconscious bias that many of us have been trained to think.

As one example, we’re socialized — or I certainly was — to think of doctors as male. When a patient says, “I saw a cardiologist,” in my mind, I think that that person might have been male. Sometimes, I will ask, “What did he say?” That’s an example of sexism.

Sexism can be internalized. It can come from any source. We’re all implicated in it. I think that’s very important to remember. This is not a case of them doing something to us. This is something that is much more widespread and engendered in the society that we live in.

Dr. LaFaver: I think that’s really important to realize. Could you mention some other examples, specifically in the field of neurology, that you have encountered?

Dr. Loder: Certainly, looking over my own career — and I’m at a point now where I can look at early, mid, and late career — things were, of course, very different when I began. I would say that sexism was much more overt.

Very early in my career, I experienced a large amount of hostility from a boss. I ended up having to leave. This was, I believe, based on my sex. It turned out that leaving was a good thing for me, but it was a very unpleasant experience.

I also became a leader in my professional society. During my path to leadership and seeing other women attempt to make progress within the organization, I certainly saw behavior that I would characterize as rooted in sexism. To its credit, though, the professional society to which I belong, I think, has become one of the most progressive societies out there. The women within have been able to affect quite a bit of change in that professional organization.

I dealt with a case of sexual harassment in my own division when I was a division chief, which gave me insight into institutional policies and procedures meant to deal with situations like that, which, I think, leave something to be desired. That’s changing.

Now, I work in academic affairs, and I see how likely or unlikely people, based on their sex, are to put themselves forward for promotion, how likely they are to believe in their own capabilities. I also work as a medical journal editor, and I see generally that women are more hesitant to proclaim themselves experts and to accept invitations to provide or write editorial commentary. Sometimes, they do not perceive themselves as being expert enough to do so. I have seen many of these things over my career.

Dr. LaFaver: Thank you for sharing. I think it’s important to realize that it›s not just unidirectional but sometimes affects women and kind of goes both ways.

As you mentioned, these issues are not always overt. In recent years, microaggressions has become more of a term that has been used. Could you talk a bit about that? What are the microaggressions and how do they affect women?
 

Microaggressions and Migraine Mavens

Dr. Loder: The term microaggression has become very popular, and I think many people find it somewhat irritating. That, to me, is inherent in what a microaggression is. Microaggressions, by definition, are small things. It’s hard to prove that they were rooted in sexism. Sometimes, there’s a large amount of ambiguity about it. It can be as simple as inviting a pregnant woman to sit down because you perceive that she needs to sit, commenting on somebody’s shoes, or things like that.

Often, they’re unintentional. Sometimes, they come from a place of what we might term benevolent sexism, people trying to be helpful to a woman because they perceive that she’s weaker or she might not be able to do something, or maybe she has family responsibilities. They think that they’re being helpful. These things happen when we perceive people to be different in some way, as women are perceived to be different in terms of their responsibilities in the home or different in terms of what we expect from them in the workplace.

The problem with microaggressions is because they’re small, each one of them, I think the temptation is often to say, “Oh you know, they didn’t mean it. It’s not that big a deal. It was just a comment on your shoes.” If a woman brings that up, she’s often made to feel, sometimes by other women, that she should just chill out. This isn’t a big deal.

The problem is that they may not be a big deal in and of themselves, but when they are repeated over a long period of time, they can really sap somebody’s confidence in herself, make her question her own competence, and can have a cumulative effect that is very negative.

Although I think many people are skeptical about microaggressions as an important contribution to how women do in the workplace and in other settings, they are, in my opinion, important. I’ll just emphasize again that they come from everywhere, including other women and colleagues who mean to be helpful.

Dr. LaFaver: I know you have led a team of headache specialists and wrote a fantastic article about navigating sexism at work and what not to say to your female colleagues. Could you share some tips for them to navigate sexism at work and, specifically, as it applies to our careers in medicine.

Dr. Loder: Thank you for calling out that article. It actually grew organically out of a Facebook group that I started called Migraine Mavens. I’ve worked in the headache field throughout my career, and I experienced something that, to me, was kind of discouraging that I felt was sexist within our field. I just thought, What can I do? I thought, Well, maybe there’s some strength to be had in sharing this with other women, and maybe we should have our own social media community, so I formed this group.

After I gave a talk at the American Headache Society about sexism in the headache field, one of the members sent me a message saying, “Your talk was very timely. Immediately after you gave this talk, somebody stopped me in the hall and said, ‘Congratulations on your leadership position in the society, but are you really sure you can do this because you’ve got young children at home?’ Your talk was very needed.”

People started just discussing within the group, “Oh, this happened to me,” “That happened to me.” We began to brainstorm what we could have done differently. When these things happen, people are not necessarily prepared for them, and later on, you lie awake thinking of what you could have said.

We decided to write a paper. It ended up being published in The Journal of Head and Face Pain, and it was based on real vignettes from people in the group. We anonymized them so that people would not recognize themselves necessarily, but they’re all real. They’re things that really happened to women in the group.

We first describe the vignette — what happened. Then we explain, for those who need the explanation, what’s wrong with it. Why is it wrong to tell somebody to smile, for example. What could you do differently? What could somebody who sees this happen do, the so-called bystander or upstander? If you witness something like that, can you help the person toward whom this problematic behavior is directed? We came up with some examples. The all-purpose thing is to say, “What did you just say?” Make them repeat it, which often helps people to realize how inappropriate it is.

This got published as an article. It became quite the subject of attention on X [formerly Twitter] and elsewhere. I guess the term going viral would apply to this. It included a large amount of real-world advice. The thing I really loved about it was that it was written by the women in the group who had experienced these things. I would characterize it as having been somewhat therapeutic. We got many messages from women in other disciplines, outside medicine, saying that this happens in oceanography, for example. I think what we described really resonated beyond the field of headache medicine and neurology.
 

Institutional Sexism

Dr. LaFaver: Looking beyond the individual person, do you have any recommendations for medical institutions to share in order to do better and maybe create an environment that is less sexist?

Dr. Loder: Yes. I think many institutions try to deal with the problem of lack of diversity, whether it›s women or other underrepresented groups, by hiring. That’s one way to go about it, but I think retention strategies are also very important, and they need to pay attention to the work environment.

Every institution now has guidelines about harassment, bullying, sexism, racism, and so on. In general though — and I’m not speaking about any particular institution — these policies and procedures are often crafted with an eye toward protecting the institution. I would advise institutions to be a bit more genuine about this, and not to think so quickly about what can we do to prevent the institution from facing a charge of sexism, or what can we do to deny or dismiss these allegations, toward thinking, what can we do to really and truly be helpful to these women? In other words, approach it from the point of view of trying to help the people involved instead of trying to help the institution. That will make a very big difference.

I also think that citizenship activities, serving on committees, doing thankless tasks behind the scenes, and clinical work, seeing patients ... Women are overrepresented among clinicians. Of course, we know that research and bringing in big grants is often prioritized over clinical care, despite what institutions may say about that in public. I think those activities should be valued more highly, both in terms of pay and in terms of academic recognition.

In regard to the issue of salary, I would encourage institutions to publish salaries or at least make them easily findable by people within the institution. I think there should be objective criteria for salary determinations. The most important thing is that I do not think that women should be expected to negotiate their salaries. Women are judged differently than men when they attempt to negotiate salaries. It often backfires for them. It also is something that many women do not feel comfortable doing.

Waiting until somebody tries to negotiate a higher salary really guarantees, embeds, and operationalizes sex differences in salaries. We need to move away from the idea that you have to be a go-getter and that you have to ask for this raise. There should be objective criteria, salaries should be revisited on a regular basis, and the kinds of activities that women do that are undervalued should be more recognized in terms of money and advancement within academia.

Dr. LaFaver: I couldn’t agree more. One of the other topics discussed at the Women in Neurology conference was mid-career development, retention, and career paths. I think it’s known that many women leave academic medicine mid-career. I think these are excellent suggestions and hopefully will help to make careers successful for men and women, without needing to worry about being treated differently or unfairly.

Thank you so much. This was a wonderful overview of this topic.

Dr. Loder: You’re welcome, Dr. LaFaver. Thank you so much for asking me to speak on this topic. I really appreciate it.

Dr. LaFaver: Thanks, everyone.

 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, New York. Dr. LaFaver and Dr. Loder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Amid all the hype, claims, and confusion, there is evidence linking some foods and drinks to an increased risk for acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, rosacea, and other common skin conditions. So, what is the connection in each case? And how can people with any of these skin conditions potentially improve their health and quality of life with dietary changes?

Acne

One of the major areas of interest is diet and acne. “We’ve all heard sugar and dairy are bad, and the Western diet is high in sugar and dairy,” Dr. Shi said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.
Dairy, red meat, and carbohydrates can break down into leucine, an essential amino acid found in protein. Leucine and sugar together, in turn, can produce insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which, through different pathways, can reach the androgen receptors throughout the body, including the skin. This results in sebogenesis, lipogenesis, and keratinization, which triggers follicular inflammation and results in more of the acne-causing bacteria Cutibacterium acnes. 
Milk and other dairy products also can increase IGF-1 levels, which can alter hormonal mediators and increase acne.
Not all types of dairy milk are created equal, however, when it comes to acne. Dr. Shi wondered why 2% milk has overall color and nutritional content very similar to that of whole milk. “I looked into this.” She discovered that when milk manufacturers remove the fat, they often add whey proteins to restore some nutrients. Whey protein can increase acne, Dr. Shi added. 
“So, if you’re going to choose any milk to drink, I think from an acne perspective, it’s better to use whole milk. If you can get it organic, even better.” Skim milk is the most acnegenic, she said.

Psoriasis

A systematic review of 55 studies evaluating diet and psoriasis found obesity can be an exacerbating factor. The strongest evidence for dietary weight reduction points to a hypocaloric diet in people with overweight or obesity, according to the review. Other evidence suggests alcohol can lower response to treatment and is linked with more severe psoriasis. Furthermore, a gluten-free diet or vitamin D supplements can help some subpopulations of people with psoriasis. 
“An overwhelming majority of our psoriasis patients are vitamin D deficient,” Dr. Shi said. 
The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) publishes dietary modification guidelines, updated as recently as November 2023. The NPF states that “there is no diet that will cure psoriatic disease, but there are many ways in which eating healthful food may lessen the severity of symptoms and play a role in lowering the likelihood of developing comorbidities.”
Healthier choices include fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat dairy products. Include lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet has been linked to a lower severity of psoriasis.

Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is “one of the prototypical diseases related to diet,” Dr. Shi said. A different meta-analysis looked at randomized controlled trials of synbiotics (a combination of prebiotics and probiotics) for treatment of AD.
These researchers found that synbiotics do not prevent AD, but they can help treat it in adults and children older than 1 year. In addition, synbiotics are more beneficial than probiotics in treating the condition, although there are no head-to-head comparison studies. In addition, the meta-analysis found that prebiotics alone can lower AD severity.
However, Dr. Shi said, there are no recommendations from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) on prebiotics or probiotics for AD, and the AAD does not recommend any supplement or essential oil for AD.
In a 2022 review, investigators ranked the efficacy of different supplements for AD based on available evidence. They found the greatest benefit associated with vitamin D supplementation, followed by vitamin E, probiotics, hemp seed oil, histidine, and oolong tea. They also noted the ‘Six Food Elimination Diet and Autoimmune Protocol’ featured the least amount of evidence to back it up. 

Rosacea

Rosacea appears to be caused by “all the fun things in life” like sunlight, alcohol, chocolate, spicy foods, and caffeine, Dr. Shi said. In people with rosacea, they can cause facial flushing, edema, burning, and an inflammatory response.
Certain foods can activate skin receptors and sensory neurons, which can release neuropeptides that act on mast cells in blood that lead to flushing. The skin-gut axis may also be involved, evidence suggests. “And that is why food has a pretty profound impact on rosacea,” Dr. Shi said. 
Dr. Shi reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Amid all the hype, claims, and confusion, there is evidence linking some foods and drinks to an increased risk for acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, rosacea, and other common skin conditions. So, what is the connection in each case? And how can people with any of these skin conditions potentially improve their health and quality of life with dietary changes?

Acne

One of the major areas of interest is diet and acne. “We’ve all heard sugar and dairy are bad, and the Western diet is high in sugar and dairy,” Dr. Shi said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.
Dairy, red meat, and carbohydrates can break down into leucine, an essential amino acid found in protein. Leucine and sugar together, in turn, can produce insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which, through different pathways, can reach the androgen receptors throughout the body, including the skin. This results in sebogenesis, lipogenesis, and keratinization, which triggers follicular inflammation and results in more of the acne-causing bacteria Cutibacterium acnes. 
Milk and other dairy products also can increase IGF-1 levels, which can alter hormonal mediators and increase acne.
Not all types of dairy milk are created equal, however, when it comes to acne. Dr. Shi wondered why 2% milk has overall color and nutritional content very similar to that of whole milk. “I looked into this.” She discovered that when milk manufacturers remove the fat, they often add whey proteins to restore some nutrients. Whey protein can increase acne, Dr. Shi added. 
“So, if you’re going to choose any milk to drink, I think from an acne perspective, it’s better to use whole milk. If you can get it organic, even better.” Skim milk is the most acnegenic, she said.

Psoriasis

A systematic review of 55 studies evaluating diet and psoriasis found obesity can be an exacerbating factor. The strongest evidence for dietary weight reduction points to a hypocaloric diet in people with overweight or obesity, according to the review. Other evidence suggests alcohol can lower response to treatment and is linked with more severe psoriasis. Furthermore, a gluten-free diet or vitamin D supplements can help some subpopulations of people with psoriasis. 
“An overwhelming majority of our psoriasis patients are vitamin D deficient,” Dr. Shi said. 
The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) publishes dietary modification guidelines, updated as recently as November 2023. The NPF states that “there is no diet that will cure psoriatic disease, but there are many ways in which eating healthful food may lessen the severity of symptoms and play a role in lowering the likelihood of developing comorbidities.”
Healthier choices include fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat dairy products. Include lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet has been linked to a lower severity of psoriasis.

Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is “one of the prototypical diseases related to diet,” Dr. Shi said. A different meta-analysis looked at randomized controlled trials of synbiotics (a combination of prebiotics and probiotics) for treatment of AD.
These researchers found that synbiotics do not prevent AD, but they can help treat it in adults and children older than 1 year. In addition, synbiotics are more beneficial than probiotics in treating the condition, although there are no head-to-head comparison studies. In addition, the meta-analysis found that prebiotics alone can lower AD severity.
However, Dr. Shi said, there are no recommendations from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) on prebiotics or probiotics for AD, and the AAD does not recommend any supplement or essential oil for AD.
In a 2022 review, investigators ranked the efficacy of different supplements for AD based on available evidence. They found the greatest benefit associated with vitamin D supplementation, followed by vitamin E, probiotics, hemp seed oil, histidine, and oolong tea. They also noted the ‘Six Food Elimination Diet and Autoimmune Protocol’ featured the least amount of evidence to back it up. 

Rosacea

Rosacea appears to be caused by “all the fun things in life” like sunlight, alcohol, chocolate, spicy foods, and caffeine, Dr. Shi said. In people with rosacea, they can cause facial flushing, edema, burning, and an inflammatory response.
Certain foods can activate skin receptors and sensory neurons, which can release neuropeptides that act on mast cells in blood that lead to flushing. The skin-gut axis may also be involved, evidence suggests. “And that is why food has a pretty profound impact on rosacea,” Dr. Shi said. 
Dr. Shi reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Amid all the hype, claims, and confusion, there is evidence linking some foods and drinks to an increased risk for acne, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, rosacea, and other common skin conditions. So, what is the connection in each case? And how can people with any of these skin conditions potentially improve their health and quality of life with dietary changes?

Acne

One of the major areas of interest is diet and acne. “We’ve all heard sugar and dairy are bad, and the Western diet is high in sugar and dairy,” Dr. Shi said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.
Dairy, red meat, and carbohydrates can break down into leucine, an essential amino acid found in protein. Leucine and sugar together, in turn, can produce insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which, through different pathways, can reach the androgen receptors throughout the body, including the skin. This results in sebogenesis, lipogenesis, and keratinization, which triggers follicular inflammation and results in more of the acne-causing bacteria Cutibacterium acnes. 
Milk and other dairy products also can increase IGF-1 levels, which can alter hormonal mediators and increase acne.
Not all types of dairy milk are created equal, however, when it comes to acne. Dr. Shi wondered why 2% milk has overall color and nutritional content very similar to that of whole milk. “I looked into this.” She discovered that when milk manufacturers remove the fat, they often add whey proteins to restore some nutrients. Whey protein can increase acne, Dr. Shi added. 
“So, if you’re going to choose any milk to drink, I think from an acne perspective, it’s better to use whole milk. If you can get it organic, even better.” Skim milk is the most acnegenic, she said.

Psoriasis

A systematic review of 55 studies evaluating diet and psoriasis found obesity can be an exacerbating factor. The strongest evidence for dietary weight reduction points to a hypocaloric diet in people with overweight or obesity, according to the review. Other evidence suggests alcohol can lower response to treatment and is linked with more severe psoriasis. Furthermore, a gluten-free diet or vitamin D supplements can help some subpopulations of people with psoriasis. 
“An overwhelming majority of our psoriasis patients are vitamin D deficient,” Dr. Shi said. 
The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) publishes dietary modification guidelines, updated as recently as November 2023. The NPF states that “there is no diet that will cure psoriatic disease, but there are many ways in which eating healthful food may lessen the severity of symptoms and play a role in lowering the likelihood of developing comorbidities.”
Healthier choices include fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat dairy products. Include lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet has been linked to a lower severity of psoriasis.

Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is “one of the prototypical diseases related to diet,” Dr. Shi said. A different meta-analysis looked at randomized controlled trials of synbiotics (a combination of prebiotics and probiotics) for treatment of AD.
These researchers found that synbiotics do not prevent AD, but they can help treat it in adults and children older than 1 year. In addition, synbiotics are more beneficial than probiotics in treating the condition, although there are no head-to-head comparison studies. In addition, the meta-analysis found that prebiotics alone can lower AD severity.
However, Dr. Shi said, there are no recommendations from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) on prebiotics or probiotics for AD, and the AAD does not recommend any supplement or essential oil for AD.
In a 2022 review, investigators ranked the efficacy of different supplements for AD based on available evidence. They found the greatest benefit associated with vitamin D supplementation, followed by vitamin E, probiotics, hemp seed oil, histidine, and oolong tea. They also noted the ‘Six Food Elimination Diet and Autoimmune Protocol’ featured the least amount of evidence to back it up. 

Rosacea

Rosacea appears to be caused by “all the fun things in life” like sunlight, alcohol, chocolate, spicy foods, and caffeine, Dr. Shi said. In people with rosacea, they can cause facial flushing, edema, burning, and an inflammatory response.
Certain foods can activate skin receptors and sensory neurons, which can release neuropeptides that act on mast cells in blood that lead to flushing. The skin-gut axis may also be involved, evidence suggests. “And that is why food has a pretty profound impact on rosacea,” Dr. Shi said. 
Dr. Shi reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) suggest that a daily multivitamin may help protect the aging brain. However, at least one expert has concerns about the study’s methodology and, as a result, the interpretation of its findings. 

The meta-analysis of three separate cognition studies provides “strong and consistent evidence that taking a daily multivitamin, containing more than 20 essential micronutrients, can help prevent memory loss and slow down cognitive aging,” study investigator Chirag Vyas, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization. 

“We are not now recommending multivitamin use, but the evidence is compelling that supports the promise of multivitamins to help prevent cognitive decline,” Dr. Vyas said. 

The new data, from the cognitive substudies of COSMOS, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 

Clinically Meaningful Benefit?

To recap, COSMOS was a 2 x 2 factorial trial of coca extract (500 mg/d flavanols) and/or a daily commercial multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention among more than 21,000 US adults aged 60 years or older. 

Neither the cocoa extract nor the MVM supplement had a significant impact on cancer or cardiovascular disease events.

COMOS-Mind was a substudy of 2262 participants aged 65 or older without dementia who completed telephone-based cognitive assessments at baseline and annually for 3 years. 

As previously reported by this news organization in COSMOS-Mind, there was no cognitive benefit of daily cocoa extract, but daily MVM supplementation was associated with improved global cognition, episodic memory, and executive function. However, the difference in global cognitive function between MVM and placebo was small, with a mean 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at 3 years. 

COSMOS-Web was a substudy of 3562 original participants who were evaluated annually for 3 years using an internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests. 

In this analysis, those taking the MVM supplement performed better on a test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words); they were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. However, they did not improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition.

The new data are from COSMOS-Clinic, an analysis of 573 participants who completed in-person cognitive assessments. 

COSMOS-Clinic showed a modest benefit of MVM, compared with placebo, on global cognition over 2 years (mean difference, 0.06 SD units [SU]), with a significantly more favorable change in episodic memory (mean difference, 0.12 SU) but not in executive function/attention (mean difference, 0.04 SU), the researchers reported. 

They also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate cognitive substudies, with 5200 nonoverlapping COSMOS participants. 

The results showed “clear evidence” of MVM benefits on global cognition (mean difference, 0.07 SU; P = .0009) and episodic memory (mean difference, 0.06 SU; P =.0007), they reported, with the magnitude of effect on global cognition equivalent to reducing cognitive aging by 2 years.

In a statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who led the overall COSMOS trial, said that “the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive aging in three separate placebo-controlled studies in COSMOS is exciting and further supports the promise of multivitamins as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults.”
 

Not a Meta-analysis?

In an interview with this news organization, Christopher Labos, MD CM, MSc, a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal, Canada, who wasn’t involved in COSMOS, cautioned that the evidence to date on multivitamins for memory and brain health are “not all that impressive.”

Dr. Labos is a columnist for this news organization and previously has written about the COSMOS trial. 

He said it is important to note that this “meta-analysis of COSMOS data, strictly speaking, is not a meta-analysis” because the patients were all from the original COSMOS study without including any additional patients, “so you don’t have any more data than what you started with.

“The fact that the results are consistent with the original trial is not surprising. In fact, it would be concerning if they were not consistent because they’re the same population. They were just assessed differently — by phone, online, or in person,” Dr. Labos explained. 

“It is hard to tell what the benefit with multivitamins actually means in terms of hard clinical endpoints that matter to patients. Scoring a little bit better on a standardized test — I guess that’s a good thing, but does that mean you’re less likely to get dementia? I’m not sure we’re there yet,” he told this news organization. 

The bottom line, said Dr. Labos, is that “at this point, the evidence does not support recommending multivitamins purely for brain health. There is also a cost and potential downside associated with their use.”

Also weighing in on the new analyses from COSMOS, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, said while there are now “positive, large-scale, long-term studies that show that multivitamin-mineral supplementation for older adults may slow cognitive aging, the Alzheimer’s Association is not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults.

“Independent confirmatory studies are needed in larger, more diverse, and representative study populations. COSMOS-Clinic, for example, had less than 2% non-White in the multivitamin group and 5% non-White in the placebo group. It is critical that future treatments and preventions are effective in all populations,” Dr. Sexton told this news organization.

She noted that multivitamin supplements are “generally easy to find and relatively affordable. With confirmation, these promising findings have the potential to significantly impact public health — improving brain health, lowering healthcare costs, reducing caregiver burden — especially among older adults.”

The Alzheimer’s Association, Dr. Sexton said, “envisions a future where there are multiple treatments available that address the disease in multiple ways — like heart disease and cancer — and that can be combined into powerful combination therapies, in conjunction with brain-healthy guidelines for lifestyle, like diet and physical activity.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions that target multiple risk factors can protect cognition in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

COSMOS-Clinic and the cognition studies in the meta-analysis were supported by investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc., and the National Institutes of Health. Multivitamin and placebo tablets and packaging were donated by Pfizer, Inc Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon). Disclosures for the COSMOS investigators are available with the original article. Dr. Labos and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) suggest that a daily multivitamin may help protect the aging brain. However, at least one expert has concerns about the study’s methodology and, as a result, the interpretation of its findings. 

The meta-analysis of three separate cognition studies provides “strong and consistent evidence that taking a daily multivitamin, containing more than 20 essential micronutrients, can help prevent memory loss and slow down cognitive aging,” study investigator Chirag Vyas, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization. 

“We are not now recommending multivitamin use, but the evidence is compelling that supports the promise of multivitamins to help prevent cognitive decline,” Dr. Vyas said. 

The new data, from the cognitive substudies of COSMOS, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 

Clinically Meaningful Benefit?

To recap, COSMOS was a 2 x 2 factorial trial of coca extract (500 mg/d flavanols) and/or a daily commercial multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention among more than 21,000 US adults aged 60 years or older. 

Neither the cocoa extract nor the MVM supplement had a significant impact on cancer or cardiovascular disease events.

COMOS-Mind was a substudy of 2262 participants aged 65 or older without dementia who completed telephone-based cognitive assessments at baseline and annually for 3 years. 

As previously reported by this news organization in COSMOS-Mind, there was no cognitive benefit of daily cocoa extract, but daily MVM supplementation was associated with improved global cognition, episodic memory, and executive function. However, the difference in global cognitive function between MVM and placebo was small, with a mean 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at 3 years. 

COSMOS-Web was a substudy of 3562 original participants who were evaluated annually for 3 years using an internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests. 

In this analysis, those taking the MVM supplement performed better on a test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words); they were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. However, they did not improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition.

The new data are from COSMOS-Clinic, an analysis of 573 participants who completed in-person cognitive assessments. 

COSMOS-Clinic showed a modest benefit of MVM, compared with placebo, on global cognition over 2 years (mean difference, 0.06 SD units [SU]), with a significantly more favorable change in episodic memory (mean difference, 0.12 SU) but not in executive function/attention (mean difference, 0.04 SU), the researchers reported. 

They also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate cognitive substudies, with 5200 nonoverlapping COSMOS participants. 

The results showed “clear evidence” of MVM benefits on global cognition (mean difference, 0.07 SU; P = .0009) and episodic memory (mean difference, 0.06 SU; P =.0007), they reported, with the magnitude of effect on global cognition equivalent to reducing cognitive aging by 2 years.

In a statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who led the overall COSMOS trial, said that “the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive aging in three separate placebo-controlled studies in COSMOS is exciting and further supports the promise of multivitamins as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults.”
 

Not a Meta-analysis?

In an interview with this news organization, Christopher Labos, MD CM, MSc, a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal, Canada, who wasn’t involved in COSMOS, cautioned that the evidence to date on multivitamins for memory and brain health are “not all that impressive.”

Dr. Labos is a columnist for this news organization and previously has written about the COSMOS trial. 

He said it is important to note that this “meta-analysis of COSMOS data, strictly speaking, is not a meta-analysis” because the patients were all from the original COSMOS study without including any additional patients, “so you don’t have any more data than what you started with.

“The fact that the results are consistent with the original trial is not surprising. In fact, it would be concerning if they were not consistent because they’re the same population. They were just assessed differently — by phone, online, or in person,” Dr. Labos explained. 

“It is hard to tell what the benefit with multivitamins actually means in terms of hard clinical endpoints that matter to patients. Scoring a little bit better on a standardized test — I guess that’s a good thing, but does that mean you’re less likely to get dementia? I’m not sure we’re there yet,” he told this news organization. 

The bottom line, said Dr. Labos, is that “at this point, the evidence does not support recommending multivitamins purely for brain health. There is also a cost and potential downside associated with their use.”

Also weighing in on the new analyses from COSMOS, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, said while there are now “positive, large-scale, long-term studies that show that multivitamin-mineral supplementation for older adults may slow cognitive aging, the Alzheimer’s Association is not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults.

“Independent confirmatory studies are needed in larger, more diverse, and representative study populations. COSMOS-Clinic, for example, had less than 2% non-White in the multivitamin group and 5% non-White in the placebo group. It is critical that future treatments and preventions are effective in all populations,” Dr. Sexton told this news organization.

She noted that multivitamin supplements are “generally easy to find and relatively affordable. With confirmation, these promising findings have the potential to significantly impact public health — improving brain health, lowering healthcare costs, reducing caregiver burden — especially among older adults.”

The Alzheimer’s Association, Dr. Sexton said, “envisions a future where there are multiple treatments available that address the disease in multiple ways — like heart disease and cancer — and that can be combined into powerful combination therapies, in conjunction with brain-healthy guidelines for lifestyle, like diet and physical activity.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions that target multiple risk factors can protect cognition in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

COSMOS-Clinic and the cognition studies in the meta-analysis were supported by investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc., and the National Institutes of Health. Multivitamin and placebo tablets and packaging were donated by Pfizer, Inc Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon). Disclosures for the COSMOS investigators are available with the original article. Dr. Labos and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) suggest that a daily multivitamin may help protect the aging brain. However, at least one expert has concerns about the study’s methodology and, as a result, the interpretation of its findings. 

The meta-analysis of three separate cognition studies provides “strong and consistent evidence that taking a daily multivitamin, containing more than 20 essential micronutrients, can help prevent memory loss and slow down cognitive aging,” study investigator Chirag Vyas, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization. 

“We are not now recommending multivitamin use, but the evidence is compelling that supports the promise of multivitamins to help prevent cognitive decline,” Dr. Vyas said. 

The new data, from the cognitive substudies of COSMOS, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 

Clinically Meaningful Benefit?

To recap, COSMOS was a 2 x 2 factorial trial of coca extract (500 mg/d flavanols) and/or a daily commercial multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention among more than 21,000 US adults aged 60 years or older. 

Neither the cocoa extract nor the MVM supplement had a significant impact on cancer or cardiovascular disease events.

COMOS-Mind was a substudy of 2262 participants aged 65 or older without dementia who completed telephone-based cognitive assessments at baseline and annually for 3 years. 

As previously reported by this news organization in COSMOS-Mind, there was no cognitive benefit of daily cocoa extract, but daily MVM supplementation was associated with improved global cognition, episodic memory, and executive function. However, the difference in global cognitive function between MVM and placebo was small, with a mean 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at 3 years. 

COSMOS-Web was a substudy of 3562 original participants who were evaluated annually for 3 years using an internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests. 

In this analysis, those taking the MVM supplement performed better on a test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words); they were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. However, they did not improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition.

The new data are from COSMOS-Clinic, an analysis of 573 participants who completed in-person cognitive assessments. 

COSMOS-Clinic showed a modest benefit of MVM, compared with placebo, on global cognition over 2 years (mean difference, 0.06 SD units [SU]), with a significantly more favorable change in episodic memory (mean difference, 0.12 SU) but not in executive function/attention (mean difference, 0.04 SU), the researchers reported. 

They also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate cognitive substudies, with 5200 nonoverlapping COSMOS participants. 

The results showed “clear evidence” of MVM benefits on global cognition (mean difference, 0.07 SU; P = .0009) and episodic memory (mean difference, 0.06 SU; P =.0007), they reported, with the magnitude of effect on global cognition equivalent to reducing cognitive aging by 2 years.

In a statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who led the overall COSMOS trial, said that “the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive aging in three separate placebo-controlled studies in COSMOS is exciting and further supports the promise of multivitamins as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults.”
 

Not a Meta-analysis?

In an interview with this news organization, Christopher Labos, MD CM, MSc, a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal, Canada, who wasn’t involved in COSMOS, cautioned that the evidence to date on multivitamins for memory and brain health are “not all that impressive.”

Dr. Labos is a columnist for this news organization and previously has written about the COSMOS trial. 

He said it is important to note that this “meta-analysis of COSMOS data, strictly speaking, is not a meta-analysis” because the patients were all from the original COSMOS study without including any additional patients, “so you don’t have any more data than what you started with.

“The fact that the results are consistent with the original trial is not surprising. In fact, it would be concerning if they were not consistent because they’re the same population. They were just assessed differently — by phone, online, or in person,” Dr. Labos explained. 

“It is hard to tell what the benefit with multivitamins actually means in terms of hard clinical endpoints that matter to patients. Scoring a little bit better on a standardized test — I guess that’s a good thing, but does that mean you’re less likely to get dementia? I’m not sure we’re there yet,” he told this news organization. 

The bottom line, said Dr. Labos, is that “at this point, the evidence does not support recommending multivitamins purely for brain health. There is also a cost and potential downside associated with their use.”

Also weighing in on the new analyses from COSMOS, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, said while there are now “positive, large-scale, long-term studies that show that multivitamin-mineral supplementation for older adults may slow cognitive aging, the Alzheimer’s Association is not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults.

“Independent confirmatory studies are needed in larger, more diverse, and representative study populations. COSMOS-Clinic, for example, had less than 2% non-White in the multivitamin group and 5% non-White in the placebo group. It is critical that future treatments and preventions are effective in all populations,” Dr. Sexton told this news organization.

She noted that multivitamin supplements are “generally easy to find and relatively affordable. With confirmation, these promising findings have the potential to significantly impact public health — improving brain health, lowering healthcare costs, reducing caregiver burden — especially among older adults.”

The Alzheimer’s Association, Dr. Sexton said, “envisions a future where there are multiple treatments available that address the disease in multiple ways — like heart disease and cancer — and that can be combined into powerful combination therapies, in conjunction with brain-healthy guidelines for lifestyle, like diet and physical activity.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions that target multiple risk factors can protect cognition in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

COSMOS-Clinic and the cognition studies in the meta-analysis were supported by investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc., and the National Institutes of Health. Multivitamin and placebo tablets and packaging were donated by Pfizer, Inc Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon). Disclosures for the COSMOS investigators are available with the original article. Dr. Labos and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.