News

Beth Cavanaugh, 79, was starting a new medication when she ran into a modern hurdle: Her doctor’s office required all follow–up questions, even those about side effects of the drug, to go through the patient portal.

Cavanaugh said she did not know how to set up or use the system.

“I tried to explain that, but the receptionist said that was the only way to contact the doctor. I felt lost,” said Cavanaugh, a retired psychotherapist near Albany, New York.

Cavanaugh is far from alone. Many older people balk at the idea of communicating with their physicians over the internet. They may have limited digital skills, have physical challenges, or simply prefer human connection.

As medicine leans harder on electronic portals and telehealth, these patients are finding themselves shut out of their own care. Experts warn this approach deepens inequities in access to care and can worsen health outcomes.

Clinicians should “offer options for various types of communication, such as phone calls or texts, because whenever an older adult — or anyone, for that matter — is given a choice, they feel more empowered and more committed to their care,” said Susan Wehry, MD, associate clinical professor at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Maine.
 

Tech Support

Use of medical communication tools varies among older adults. One study in JAMA Network Open found nearly two thirds of those older than 65 years who filled out surveys via phone or internet had used a patient portal, while a little under half used telehealth, and only 44% used a medical health application.

Older patients tend to fall into two camps, said Neela Patel, MD, MPH, CMD, chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Supportive Care at the UT Health San Antonio.

Her patients “are at two extremes of the spectrum — some technologically savvy and others with limited digital literacy or limited or no access to the Internet,” Patel, who is also the vice chair of the Health Systems Innovations and Technology Committee of the American Geriatric Society, said.

Patel’s practice has dedicated staff to help patients master certain technologies. For example, a pharmacist teaches patients how to use a glucometer and a blood pressure cuff. Other staff teach them how to use smartphone apps that track blood pressure or glucose.

She usually sees patients in person before offering telehealth as an option, ensuring the person has “enough digital literacy to utilize them and that the patient can see and hear the visit.”

If technological limitations impede a telehealth appointment, clinicians can help patients navigate their computer screen. Patel recounted the story of an older woman who was unable to come to the clinic in person, so had a telehealth visit instead.

“She had trouble hearing me, so I asked her to share her screen with me. I walked her through how to do that. Then I showed her where the ‘volume’ button was located. It turns out her volume was at zero,” Patel said. “Once that was adjusted, we were able to proceed with the appointment.”

Educating older adults on how to use health technology does not have to fall upon clinicians and their staff, according to Wehry. She routinely refers her patients to community resources to help them develop digital skills.

Local libraries and community centers often offer digital education. Some retirement communities and assisted living facilities also have tech support personnel or classes available to residents.

Wehry refers some of her patients to the National Digital Equity Center which teaches older adults how to hold a telehealth visit.

Roughly 90% of Patel’s patients are signed up for the patient portal, but they may not be operating the technology, she said. She advises these patients to ask their children or caregivers for help as appropriate. 

Teaching patients to use the communication technology early on can also be helpful in other ways. If patients who have been technologically proficient start having difficulty, “it’s a clue there may be cognitive changes, and we follow up on those,” Patel said.

Additional resources to help older adults develop digital competence include Cyber Seniors, Older Adults Technology Services, AARP, AARP Find Digital Courses, Area Agencies on Aging, and Senior Navigator.
 

Human Touch

Some older adults may simply want a more traditional means of communicating with their clinician. A review of 29 papers, encompassing over 6200 adults older than 60 years, identified several domains affecting the adoption of healthcare technology, two of which were resistance to new technology and having family or friends that could help with.

Wehry said many older adults “don’t resist this technology because they’re unable to figure out how to use it. Instead, they see the technology as too impersonal.”

One study found many older adults fear technologies may end up replacing face-to-face contact.

“I’m beginning to encourage primary care providers to take a step back and refocus on the doctor-patient relationship. When communication is limited to the technological approach, it can erode trust in that relationship,” Wehry said.

The American Medical Association recommends clinicians “provide a method other than electronic communication for patients who are without technological proficiency or access.”

Some busy clinicians might be concerned phone calls will be too time-consuming, Wehry said. Patients should be informed of hours of phone availability, how much time is allotted to calls, and how many days or hours a response may take. Clinicians might also use tools that allow patients to use their cell phone to text their practice with medical questions.

Cavanaugh ended up finding technological help from a professional organizer whom she hired to help rearrange her closets.

“She’s knowledgeable and patient, and she’s helping me with the portal,” she said. “If I hadn’t serendipitously found the organizer, I’d still be struggling and unable to access proper medical care.”

Wehry and Patel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beth Cavanaugh, 79, was starting a new medication when she ran into a modern hurdle: Her doctor’s office required all follow–up questions, even those about side effects of the drug, to go through the patient portal.

Cavanaugh said she did not know how to set up or use the system.

“I tried to explain that, but the receptionist said that was the only way to contact the doctor. I felt lost,” said Cavanaugh, a retired psychotherapist near Albany, New York.

Cavanaugh is far from alone. Many older people balk at the idea of communicating with their physicians over the internet. They may have limited digital skills, have physical challenges, or simply prefer human connection.

As medicine leans harder on electronic portals and telehealth, these patients are finding themselves shut out of their own care. Experts warn this approach deepens inequities in access to care and can worsen health outcomes.

Clinicians should “offer options for various types of communication, such as phone calls or texts, because whenever an older adult — or anyone, for that matter — is given a choice, they feel more empowered and more committed to their care,” said Susan Wehry, MD, associate clinical professor at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Maine.
 

Tech Support

Use of medical communication tools varies among older adults. One study in JAMA Network Open found nearly two thirds of those older than 65 years who filled out surveys via phone or internet had used a patient portal, while a little under half used telehealth, and only 44% used a medical health application.

Older patients tend to fall into two camps, said Neela Patel, MD, MPH, CMD, chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Supportive Care at the UT Health San Antonio.

Her patients “are at two extremes of the spectrum — some technologically savvy and others with limited digital literacy or limited or no access to the Internet,” Patel, who is also the vice chair of the Health Systems Innovations and Technology Committee of the American Geriatric Society, said.

Patel’s practice has dedicated staff to help patients master certain technologies. For example, a pharmacist teaches patients how to use a glucometer and a blood pressure cuff. Other staff teach them how to use smartphone apps that track blood pressure or glucose.

She usually sees patients in person before offering telehealth as an option, ensuring the person has “enough digital literacy to utilize them and that the patient can see and hear the visit.”

If technological limitations impede a telehealth appointment, clinicians can help patients navigate their computer screen. Patel recounted the story of an older woman who was unable to come to the clinic in person, so had a telehealth visit instead.

“She had trouble hearing me, so I asked her to share her screen with me. I walked her through how to do that. Then I showed her where the ‘volume’ button was located. It turns out her volume was at zero,” Patel said. “Once that was adjusted, we were able to proceed with the appointment.”

Educating older adults on how to use health technology does not have to fall upon clinicians and their staff, according to Wehry. She routinely refers her patients to community resources to help them develop digital skills.

Local libraries and community centers often offer digital education. Some retirement communities and assisted living facilities also have tech support personnel or classes available to residents.

Wehry refers some of her patients to the National Digital Equity Center which teaches older adults how to hold a telehealth visit.

Roughly 90% of Patel’s patients are signed up for the patient portal, but they may not be operating the technology, she said. She advises these patients to ask their children or caregivers for help as appropriate. 

Teaching patients to use the communication technology early on can also be helpful in other ways. If patients who have been technologically proficient start having difficulty, “it’s a clue there may be cognitive changes, and we follow up on those,” Patel said.

Additional resources to help older adults develop digital competence include Cyber Seniors, Older Adults Technology Services, AARP, AARP Find Digital Courses, Area Agencies on Aging, and Senior Navigator.
 

Human Touch

Some older adults may simply want a more traditional means of communicating with their clinician. A review of 29 papers, encompassing over 6200 adults older than 60 years, identified several domains affecting the adoption of healthcare technology, two of which were resistance to new technology and having family or friends that could help with.

Wehry said many older adults “don’t resist this technology because they’re unable to figure out how to use it. Instead, they see the technology as too impersonal.”

One study found many older adults fear technologies may end up replacing face-to-face contact.

“I’m beginning to encourage primary care providers to take a step back and refocus on the doctor-patient relationship. When communication is limited to the technological approach, it can erode trust in that relationship,” Wehry said.

The American Medical Association recommends clinicians “provide a method other than electronic communication for patients who are without technological proficiency or access.”

Some busy clinicians might be concerned phone calls will be too time-consuming, Wehry said. Patients should be informed of hours of phone availability, how much time is allotted to calls, and how many days or hours a response may take. Clinicians might also use tools that allow patients to use their cell phone to text their practice with medical questions.

Cavanaugh ended up finding technological help from a professional organizer whom she hired to help rearrange her closets.

“She’s knowledgeable and patient, and she’s helping me with the portal,” she said. “If I hadn’t serendipitously found the organizer, I’d still be struggling and unable to access proper medical care.”

Wehry and Patel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beth Cavanaugh, 79, was starting a new medication when she ran into a modern hurdle: Her doctor’s office required all follow–up questions, even those about side effects of the drug, to go through the patient portal.

Cavanaugh said she did not know how to set up or use the system.

“I tried to explain that, but the receptionist said that was the only way to contact the doctor. I felt lost,” said Cavanaugh, a retired psychotherapist near Albany, New York.

Cavanaugh is far from alone. Many older people balk at the idea of communicating with their physicians over the internet. They may have limited digital skills, have physical challenges, or simply prefer human connection.

As medicine leans harder on electronic portals and telehealth, these patients are finding themselves shut out of their own care. Experts warn this approach deepens inequities in access to care and can worsen health outcomes.

Clinicians should “offer options for various types of communication, such as phone calls or texts, because whenever an older adult — or anyone, for that matter — is given a choice, they feel more empowered and more committed to their care,” said Susan Wehry, MD, associate clinical professor at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Maine.
 

Tech Support

Use of medical communication tools varies among older adults. One study in JAMA Network Open found nearly two thirds of those older than 65 years who filled out surveys via phone or internet had used a patient portal, while a little under half used telehealth, and only 44% used a medical health application.

Older patients tend to fall into two camps, said Neela Patel, MD, MPH, CMD, chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Supportive Care at the UT Health San Antonio.

Her patients “are at two extremes of the spectrum — some technologically savvy and others with limited digital literacy or limited or no access to the Internet,” Patel, who is also the vice chair of the Health Systems Innovations and Technology Committee of the American Geriatric Society, said.

Patel’s practice has dedicated staff to help patients master certain technologies. For example, a pharmacist teaches patients how to use a glucometer and a blood pressure cuff. Other staff teach them how to use smartphone apps that track blood pressure or glucose.

She usually sees patients in person before offering telehealth as an option, ensuring the person has “enough digital literacy to utilize them and that the patient can see and hear the visit.”

If technological limitations impede a telehealth appointment, clinicians can help patients navigate their computer screen. Patel recounted the story of an older woman who was unable to come to the clinic in person, so had a telehealth visit instead.

“She had trouble hearing me, so I asked her to share her screen with me. I walked her through how to do that. Then I showed her where the ‘volume’ button was located. It turns out her volume was at zero,” Patel said. “Once that was adjusted, we were able to proceed with the appointment.”

Educating older adults on how to use health technology does not have to fall upon clinicians and their staff, according to Wehry. She routinely refers her patients to community resources to help them develop digital skills.

Local libraries and community centers often offer digital education. Some retirement communities and assisted living facilities also have tech support personnel or classes available to residents.

Wehry refers some of her patients to the National Digital Equity Center which teaches older adults how to hold a telehealth visit.

Roughly 90% of Patel’s patients are signed up for the patient portal, but they may not be operating the technology, she said. She advises these patients to ask their children or caregivers for help as appropriate. 

Teaching patients to use the communication technology early on can also be helpful in other ways. If patients who have been technologically proficient start having difficulty, “it’s a clue there may be cognitive changes, and we follow up on those,” Patel said.

Additional resources to help older adults develop digital competence include Cyber Seniors, Older Adults Technology Services, AARP, AARP Find Digital Courses, Area Agencies on Aging, and Senior Navigator.
 

Human Touch

Some older adults may simply want a more traditional means of communicating with their clinician. A review of 29 papers, encompassing over 6200 adults older than 60 years, identified several domains affecting the adoption of healthcare technology, two of which were resistance to new technology and having family or friends that could help with.

Wehry said many older adults “don’t resist this technology because they’re unable to figure out how to use it. Instead, they see the technology as too impersonal.”

One study found many older adults fear technologies may end up replacing face-to-face contact.

“I’m beginning to encourage primary care providers to take a step back and refocus on the doctor-patient relationship. When communication is limited to the technological approach, it can erode trust in that relationship,” Wehry said.

The American Medical Association recommends clinicians “provide a method other than electronic communication for patients who are without technological proficiency or access.”

Some busy clinicians might be concerned phone calls will be too time-consuming, Wehry said. Patients should be informed of hours of phone availability, how much time is allotted to calls, and how many days or hours a response may take. Clinicians might also use tools that allow patients to use their cell phone to text their practice with medical questions.

Cavanaugh ended up finding technological help from a professional organizer whom she hired to help rearrange her closets.

“She’s knowledgeable and patient, and she’s helping me with the portal,” she said. “If I hadn’t serendipitously found the organizer, I’d still be struggling and unable to access proper medical care.”

Wehry and Patel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fresenius Kabi USA has initiated a voluntary nationwide recall of three lots of famotidine injection, USP 20 mg/2 mL (10 mg/mL, 2 mL vial), according to a company announcement posted on the FDA website. 

The recall affects the following lot numbers 6133156 and 6133194, with expiration dates of August 2026, and lot number 6133388, with an expiration date of October 2026.

The recall stems from “out-of-specification endotoxin results in certain reserve samples of one lot,” the company said. The two additional lots are being recalled as a precaution. 

Elevated endotoxin levels may lead to severe systemic reactions, including sepsis, septic shock, inflammatory and life-threatening immune responses, and potentially death. 

Nonserious adverse events have been reported in association with lot 6133156, including chills, altered mental status, changes in respiratory status, fever/increased body temperature, shivering, and shaking. 

Famotidine injection is indicated in some hospitalized patients with pathological hypersecretory conditions or intractable ulcers or as an alternative to the oral dosage forms for short-term use in patients unable to take oral medication for certain conditions, including active duodenal ulcer, benign gastric ulcer or gastroesophageal reflux disease, or maintenance therapy for duodenal ulcer patients at reduced dosage after healing of an active ulcer.

Clinicians should be alert for symptoms potentially related to endotoxin exposure in patients who have received the affected product; document use of the product in affected lots (if already administered) and monitor patients carefully; and inform prescribing clinicians and nursing staff so they can monitor for signs of endotoxin-related reaction.

Patients should be advised to contact their physician or healthcare provider if they experienced any problems that may be related to receiving the affected drug. 

Clinicians should check their inventory for famotidine injection USP 20 mg/2 mL vials; discontinue use, dispensing, and distribution of affected lots; and segregate and quarantine any affected units to prevent inadvertent use. 

For questions or product return coordination, contact Fresenius Kabi USA Quality Assurance at 1-866-716-2459 or email at [email protected].

Adverse events or quality issues related to this recall should be reported to Fresenius Kabi (1-800-551-7176) and to the FDA MedWatch program. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fresenius Kabi USA has initiated a voluntary nationwide recall of three lots of famotidine injection, USP 20 mg/2 mL (10 mg/mL, 2 mL vial), according to a company announcement posted on the FDA website. 

The recall affects the following lot numbers 6133156 and 6133194, with expiration dates of August 2026, and lot number 6133388, with an expiration date of October 2026.

The recall stems from “out-of-specification endotoxin results in certain reserve samples of one lot,” the company said. The two additional lots are being recalled as a precaution. 

Elevated endotoxin levels may lead to severe systemic reactions, including sepsis, septic shock, inflammatory and life-threatening immune responses, and potentially death. 

Nonserious adverse events have been reported in association with lot 6133156, including chills, altered mental status, changes in respiratory status, fever/increased body temperature, shivering, and shaking. 

Famotidine injection is indicated in some hospitalized patients with pathological hypersecretory conditions or intractable ulcers or as an alternative to the oral dosage forms for short-term use in patients unable to take oral medication for certain conditions, including active duodenal ulcer, benign gastric ulcer or gastroesophageal reflux disease, or maintenance therapy for duodenal ulcer patients at reduced dosage after healing of an active ulcer.

Clinicians should be alert for symptoms potentially related to endotoxin exposure in patients who have received the affected product; document use of the product in affected lots (if already administered) and monitor patients carefully; and inform prescribing clinicians and nursing staff so they can monitor for signs of endotoxin-related reaction.

Patients should be advised to contact their physician or healthcare provider if they experienced any problems that may be related to receiving the affected drug. 

Clinicians should check their inventory for famotidine injection USP 20 mg/2 mL vials; discontinue use, dispensing, and distribution of affected lots; and segregate and quarantine any affected units to prevent inadvertent use. 

For questions or product return coordination, contact Fresenius Kabi USA Quality Assurance at 1-866-716-2459 or email at [email protected].

Adverse events or quality issues related to this recall should be reported to Fresenius Kabi (1-800-551-7176) and to the FDA MedWatch program. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fresenius Kabi USA has initiated a voluntary nationwide recall of three lots of famotidine injection, USP 20 mg/2 mL (10 mg/mL, 2 mL vial), according to a company announcement posted on the FDA website. 

The recall affects the following lot numbers 6133156 and 6133194, with expiration dates of August 2026, and lot number 6133388, with an expiration date of October 2026.

The recall stems from “out-of-specification endotoxin results in certain reserve samples of one lot,” the company said. The two additional lots are being recalled as a precaution. 

Elevated endotoxin levels may lead to severe systemic reactions, including sepsis, septic shock, inflammatory and life-threatening immune responses, and potentially death. 

Nonserious adverse events have been reported in association with lot 6133156, including chills, altered mental status, changes in respiratory status, fever/increased body temperature, shivering, and shaking. 

Famotidine injection is indicated in some hospitalized patients with pathological hypersecretory conditions or intractable ulcers or as an alternative to the oral dosage forms for short-term use in patients unable to take oral medication for certain conditions, including active duodenal ulcer, benign gastric ulcer or gastroesophageal reflux disease, or maintenance therapy for duodenal ulcer patients at reduced dosage after healing of an active ulcer.

Clinicians should be alert for symptoms potentially related to endotoxin exposure in patients who have received the affected product; document use of the product in affected lots (if already administered) and monitor patients carefully; and inform prescribing clinicians and nursing staff so they can monitor for signs of endotoxin-related reaction.

Patients should be advised to contact their physician or healthcare provider if they experienced any problems that may be related to receiving the affected drug. 

Clinicians should check their inventory for famotidine injection USP 20 mg/2 mL vials; discontinue use, dispensing, and distribution of affected lots; and segregate and quarantine any affected units to prevent inadvertent use. 

For questions or product return coordination, contact Fresenius Kabi USA Quality Assurance at 1-866-716-2459 or email at [email protected].

Adverse events or quality issues related to this recall should be reported to Fresenius Kabi (1-800-551-7176) and to the FDA MedWatch program. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) — an investigational endoscopic procedure — helped patients maintain weight loss, and in some cases, even lose additional weight, 3 months after discontinuing GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy, initial results of the open-label, multistage REMAIN-1 trial showed.

In addition, “the procedure was well tolerated, with only minor, transient TEAEs [treatment-emergent adverse events] consistent with routine upper endoscopy,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, of West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia, who presented the findings at The Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2025 meeting in Atlanta.

DMR uses hydrothermal ablation to treat the duodenal mucosa, which may be dysfunctional in both obesity and impaired glucose tolerance. A previous pooled clinical trial analysis of more than 100 patients with type 2 diabetes demonstrated that DMR helped patients maintain body weight loss up to 48 weeks post-procedure.

Metabolic therapeutics company Fractyl Health, Burlington, Massachusetts, developed the procedure, called Revita, and is sponsoring the current study. The trial’s aim is to determine the effect of DMR on weight-loss maintenance in patients with ≥ 15% total body weight loss using a GLP-1 RA in both an open-label arm and a prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled multicenter arm.
 

‘Encouraging Preliminary Findings’

The open-label arm included 15 DMR-treated participants (mean age, 49 years, 87% female ), all of whom had taken tirzepatide for a minimum of 5 months and a maximum of 3 years prior to DMR and had lost at least 15% of their total body weight.

Participants had a mean pre-GLP-1 RA weight of 104.8 kg and a mean weight prior to DMR of 79.4 kg, for a mean total body weight loss from the start of GLP-1 RA of 23.8%. Weight loss was heterogeneous and reflective of the real-world patient population taking GLP-1 medications, according to the poster presentation.

Participants discontinued their GLP-1 medication, underwent the DMR procedure, and were followed for 3 months. A total of 12 of 13 patients maintained or lost weight at that point, with 6 of 13 losing additional weight.

Specifically, participants experienced a median of 0.46% weight change (approximately 1 lb) compared with the 5%-6% weight regain (10-15 lb) observed after GLP-1 discontinuation in the literature.

The procedure was well tolerated, with most patients experiencing no TEAEs and none experiencing an event greater than grade 1. Grade 1 events occurred in three patients; 23% were transient in nature, lasting 2-5 days, and were similar to those typically seen with a routine upper endoscopy.

“These encouraging preliminary findings suggest that DMR may safely achieve durable weight maintenance for patients who wish to discontinue GLP-1 RA therapy,” the study authors stated.

Randomization is anticipated in early 2026, with 6-month topline data and a potential premarket approval filing expected in the second half of 2026.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) — an investigational endoscopic procedure — helped patients maintain weight loss, and in some cases, even lose additional weight, 3 months after discontinuing GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy, initial results of the open-label, multistage REMAIN-1 trial showed.

In addition, “the procedure was well tolerated, with only minor, transient TEAEs [treatment-emergent adverse events] consistent with routine upper endoscopy,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, of West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia, who presented the findings at The Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2025 meeting in Atlanta.

DMR uses hydrothermal ablation to treat the duodenal mucosa, which may be dysfunctional in both obesity and impaired glucose tolerance. A previous pooled clinical trial analysis of more than 100 patients with type 2 diabetes demonstrated that DMR helped patients maintain body weight loss up to 48 weeks post-procedure.

Metabolic therapeutics company Fractyl Health, Burlington, Massachusetts, developed the procedure, called Revita, and is sponsoring the current study. The trial’s aim is to determine the effect of DMR on weight-loss maintenance in patients with ≥ 15% total body weight loss using a GLP-1 RA in both an open-label arm and a prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled multicenter arm.
 

‘Encouraging Preliminary Findings’

The open-label arm included 15 DMR-treated participants (mean age, 49 years, 87% female ), all of whom had taken tirzepatide for a minimum of 5 months and a maximum of 3 years prior to DMR and had lost at least 15% of their total body weight.

Participants had a mean pre-GLP-1 RA weight of 104.8 kg and a mean weight prior to DMR of 79.4 kg, for a mean total body weight loss from the start of GLP-1 RA of 23.8%. Weight loss was heterogeneous and reflective of the real-world patient population taking GLP-1 medications, according to the poster presentation.

Participants discontinued their GLP-1 medication, underwent the DMR procedure, and were followed for 3 months. A total of 12 of 13 patients maintained or lost weight at that point, with 6 of 13 losing additional weight.

Specifically, participants experienced a median of 0.46% weight change (approximately 1 lb) compared with the 5%-6% weight regain (10-15 lb) observed after GLP-1 discontinuation in the literature.

The procedure was well tolerated, with most patients experiencing no TEAEs and none experiencing an event greater than grade 1. Grade 1 events occurred in three patients; 23% were transient in nature, lasting 2-5 days, and were similar to those typically seen with a routine upper endoscopy.

“These encouraging preliminary findings suggest that DMR may safely achieve durable weight maintenance for patients who wish to discontinue GLP-1 RA therapy,” the study authors stated.

Randomization is anticipated in early 2026, with 6-month topline data and a potential premarket approval filing expected in the second half of 2026.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) — an investigational endoscopic procedure — helped patients maintain weight loss, and in some cases, even lose additional weight, 3 months after discontinuing GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy, initial results of the open-label, multistage REMAIN-1 trial showed.

In addition, “the procedure was well tolerated, with only minor, transient TEAEs [treatment-emergent adverse events] consistent with routine upper endoscopy,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, of West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia, who presented the findings at The Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2025 meeting in Atlanta.

DMR uses hydrothermal ablation to treat the duodenal mucosa, which may be dysfunctional in both obesity and impaired glucose tolerance. A previous pooled clinical trial analysis of more than 100 patients with type 2 diabetes demonstrated that DMR helped patients maintain body weight loss up to 48 weeks post-procedure.

Metabolic therapeutics company Fractyl Health, Burlington, Massachusetts, developed the procedure, called Revita, and is sponsoring the current study. The trial’s aim is to determine the effect of DMR on weight-loss maintenance in patients with ≥ 15% total body weight loss using a GLP-1 RA in both an open-label arm and a prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled multicenter arm.
 

‘Encouraging Preliminary Findings’

The open-label arm included 15 DMR-treated participants (mean age, 49 years, 87% female ), all of whom had taken tirzepatide for a minimum of 5 months and a maximum of 3 years prior to DMR and had lost at least 15% of their total body weight.

Participants had a mean pre-GLP-1 RA weight of 104.8 kg and a mean weight prior to DMR of 79.4 kg, for a mean total body weight loss from the start of GLP-1 RA of 23.8%. Weight loss was heterogeneous and reflective of the real-world patient population taking GLP-1 medications, according to the poster presentation.

Participants discontinued their GLP-1 medication, underwent the DMR procedure, and were followed for 3 months. A total of 12 of 13 patients maintained or lost weight at that point, with 6 of 13 losing additional weight.

Specifically, participants experienced a median of 0.46% weight change (approximately 1 lb) compared with the 5%-6% weight regain (10-15 lb) observed after GLP-1 discontinuation in the literature.

The procedure was well tolerated, with most patients experiencing no TEAEs and none experiencing an event greater than grade 1. Grade 1 events occurred in three patients; 23% were transient in nature, lasting 2-5 days, and were similar to those typically seen with a routine upper endoscopy.

“These encouraging preliminary findings suggest that DMR may safely achieve durable weight maintenance for patients who wish to discontinue GLP-1 RA therapy,” the study authors stated.

Randomization is anticipated in early 2026, with 6-month topline data and a potential premarket approval filing expected in the second half of 2026.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Duvakitug, a novel anti-TL1a monoclonal antibody, demonstrated statistically significant differences in endoscopic response rates compared to placebo in adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease, according to results from the phase 2b RELIEVE UCCD study.

“Additional clinical and endoscopic endpoints supported the primary endpoint of endoscopic response observed with duvakitug,” study author Vipul Jairath, MB ChB, DPhil, MRCP, professor of medicine at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, reported.

These findings “support further development of duvakitug as a treatment option” for these patients, said Jairath, who presented the data at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In the 14-week randomized controlled induction study, 138 adults aged 18-75 years with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease were randomized to receive a 2250-mg loading dose of duvakitug or placebo subcutaneously, followed by either duvakitug 450 mg, 900 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks. Each arm of the study contained 46 patients, with a mean age of about 40 years, and a mean duration of disease of 9-11 years. The mean Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) score at baseline was 12.

Half to two thirds of the patients had taken advanced therapies, either approved or investigational. The trial participants were allowed to take concomitant corticosteroids, 5-aminosalicylic acid drugs, and immunosuppressants (including 6-mercaptopurine, azathioprine, and methotrexate).

Notably, the primary endpoint of endoscopic response — defined as ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in SES-CD score — was achieved in almost half of the patients taking the 900-mg higher dose (22 of 46 patients). The endoscopic response was achieved in 13 of 27 patients who had previous experience with advanced therapies, including approved biologics (anti-TNF, anti-integrins, anti-interleukin [IL]-12/23, or anti-IL-23), and JAK inhibitors.

In the high-dose arm, 26% of participants achieved endoscopic remission, and 54% achieved clinical remission.

Just 13% of patients in the duvakitug arms had a treatment-related adverse event, with serious adverse events slightly higher in the 450 mg arm than in the 900 mg arm (13% vs 2%). The most common side effects were anemia, headache, and nasopharyngitis. One patient in the 900 mg group and four in the lower-dose group discontinued due to an adverse event.

When asked to comment by GI & Hepatology News, Jordan Axelrad, MD, MPH, co-director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the NYU Langone Health, New York City, said the “results demonstrate that duvakitug is a promising therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease, with 14-week induction placebo-adjusted endoscopic response rates rivaling or exceeding our currently FDA-approved advanced, effective therapies.”

The efficacy in patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies is especially noteworthy, as it is “a population in which most existing and investigational agents show limited clinical benefit,” said Axelrad, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

Axelrad said there were no concerning safety signals, “which strengthens its appeal for clinical use.”

He said he sees promise in the anti-TL1a inhibitor class, noting that TL1A “is a key cytokine that spans innate and adaptive mucosal inflammation and also directly influences fibroblast and epithelial biology, contributing to intestinal fibrosis and barrier dysfunction.”

Because therapies in the class simultaneously target inflammatory and fibrotic pathways, “TL1A inhibition offers the potential for more durable disease control than conventional cytokine-directed therapies,” he said.

But, noted Axelrad, it is early in duvakitug’s development. “We certainly need a larger cohort in a phase 3 study with maintenance data,” he said.

Jairath disclosed having financial relationships with AbbVie, Alimentiv, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Asieris Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Avoro Capital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Endpoint Health, Enthera, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Flagship Pioneering, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos NV, Genentech, Gilde Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Innomar, JAMP, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Metacrine, Mylan, Pandion Therapeutics, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Protagonist Therapeutics, Reistone Biopharma, Roche, Roivant, Sandoz, Second Genome, Shire, Sorriso Pharmaceuticals, Syndegen, Takeda, TD Securities, Teva, Topivert, Ventyx Biosciences, and Vividion Therapeutics. Axelrad reported receiving research grants from BioFire Diagnostics, Genentech, Janssen, and Takeda; consultant, advisory board fees or honorarium from Abbvie, Abviax, Adiso, BioFire Diagnostics, Biomerieux, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Vedanta.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

PHOENIX — Duvakitug, a novel anti-TL1a monoclonal antibody, demonstrated statistically significant differences in endoscopic response rates compared to placebo in adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease, according to results from the phase 2b RELIEVE UCCD study.

“Additional clinical and endoscopic endpoints supported the primary endpoint of endoscopic response observed with duvakitug,” study author Vipul Jairath, MB ChB, DPhil, MRCP, professor of medicine at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, reported.

These findings “support further development of duvakitug as a treatment option” for these patients, said Jairath, who presented the data at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In the 14-week randomized controlled induction study, 138 adults aged 18-75 years with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease were randomized to receive a 2250-mg loading dose of duvakitug or placebo subcutaneously, followed by either duvakitug 450 mg, 900 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks. Each arm of the study contained 46 patients, with a mean age of about 40 years, and a mean duration of disease of 9-11 years. The mean Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) score at baseline was 12.

Half to two thirds of the patients had taken advanced therapies, either approved or investigational. The trial participants were allowed to take concomitant corticosteroids, 5-aminosalicylic acid drugs, and immunosuppressants (including 6-mercaptopurine, azathioprine, and methotrexate).

Notably, the primary endpoint of endoscopic response — defined as ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in SES-CD score — was achieved in almost half of the patients taking the 900-mg higher dose (22 of 46 patients). The endoscopic response was achieved in 13 of 27 patients who had previous experience with advanced therapies, including approved biologics (anti-TNF, anti-integrins, anti-interleukin [IL]-12/23, or anti-IL-23), and JAK inhibitors.

In the high-dose arm, 26% of participants achieved endoscopic remission, and 54% achieved clinical remission.

Just 13% of patients in the duvakitug arms had a treatment-related adverse event, with serious adverse events slightly higher in the 450 mg arm than in the 900 mg arm (13% vs 2%). The most common side effects were anemia, headache, and nasopharyngitis. One patient in the 900 mg group and four in the lower-dose group discontinued due to an adverse event.

When asked to comment by GI & Hepatology News, Jordan Axelrad, MD, MPH, co-director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the NYU Langone Health, New York City, said the “results demonstrate that duvakitug is a promising therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease, with 14-week induction placebo-adjusted endoscopic response rates rivaling or exceeding our currently FDA-approved advanced, effective therapies.”

The efficacy in patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies is especially noteworthy, as it is “a population in which most existing and investigational agents show limited clinical benefit,” said Axelrad, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

Axelrad said there were no concerning safety signals, “which strengthens its appeal for clinical use.”

He said he sees promise in the anti-TL1a inhibitor class, noting that TL1A “is a key cytokine that spans innate and adaptive mucosal inflammation and also directly influences fibroblast and epithelial biology, contributing to intestinal fibrosis and barrier dysfunction.”

Because therapies in the class simultaneously target inflammatory and fibrotic pathways, “TL1A inhibition offers the potential for more durable disease control than conventional cytokine-directed therapies,” he said.

But, noted Axelrad, it is early in duvakitug’s development. “We certainly need a larger cohort in a phase 3 study with maintenance data,” he said.

Jairath disclosed having financial relationships with AbbVie, Alimentiv, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Asieris Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Avoro Capital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Endpoint Health, Enthera, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Flagship Pioneering, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos NV, Genentech, Gilde Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Innomar, JAMP, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Metacrine, Mylan, Pandion Therapeutics, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Protagonist Therapeutics, Reistone Biopharma, Roche, Roivant, Sandoz, Second Genome, Shire, Sorriso Pharmaceuticals, Syndegen, Takeda, TD Securities, Teva, Topivert, Ventyx Biosciences, and Vividion Therapeutics. Axelrad reported receiving research grants from BioFire Diagnostics, Genentech, Janssen, and Takeda; consultant, advisory board fees or honorarium from Abbvie, Abviax, Adiso, BioFire Diagnostics, Biomerieux, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Vedanta.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

PHOENIX — Duvakitug, a novel anti-TL1a monoclonal antibody, demonstrated statistically significant differences in endoscopic response rates compared to placebo in adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease, according to results from the phase 2b RELIEVE UCCD study.

“Additional clinical and endoscopic endpoints supported the primary endpoint of endoscopic response observed with duvakitug,” study author Vipul Jairath, MB ChB, DPhil, MRCP, professor of medicine at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, reported.

These findings “support further development of duvakitug as a treatment option” for these patients, said Jairath, who presented the data at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In the 14-week randomized controlled induction study, 138 adults aged 18-75 years with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease were randomized to receive a 2250-mg loading dose of duvakitug or placebo subcutaneously, followed by either duvakitug 450 mg, 900 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks. Each arm of the study contained 46 patients, with a mean age of about 40 years, and a mean duration of disease of 9-11 years. The mean Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) score at baseline was 12.

Half to two thirds of the patients had taken advanced therapies, either approved or investigational. The trial participants were allowed to take concomitant corticosteroids, 5-aminosalicylic acid drugs, and immunosuppressants (including 6-mercaptopurine, azathioprine, and methotrexate).

Notably, the primary endpoint of endoscopic response — defined as ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in SES-CD score — was achieved in almost half of the patients taking the 900-mg higher dose (22 of 46 patients). The endoscopic response was achieved in 13 of 27 patients who had previous experience with advanced therapies, including approved biologics (anti-TNF, anti-integrins, anti-interleukin [IL]-12/23, or anti-IL-23), and JAK inhibitors.

In the high-dose arm, 26% of participants achieved endoscopic remission, and 54% achieved clinical remission.

Just 13% of patients in the duvakitug arms had a treatment-related adverse event, with serious adverse events slightly higher in the 450 mg arm than in the 900 mg arm (13% vs 2%). The most common side effects were anemia, headache, and nasopharyngitis. One patient in the 900 mg group and four in the lower-dose group discontinued due to an adverse event.

When asked to comment by GI & Hepatology News, Jordan Axelrad, MD, MPH, co-director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the NYU Langone Health, New York City, said the “results demonstrate that duvakitug is a promising therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease, with 14-week induction placebo-adjusted endoscopic response rates rivaling or exceeding our currently FDA-approved advanced, effective therapies.”

The efficacy in patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies is especially noteworthy, as it is “a population in which most existing and investigational agents show limited clinical benefit,” said Axelrad, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

Axelrad said there were no concerning safety signals, “which strengthens its appeal for clinical use.”

He said he sees promise in the anti-TL1a inhibitor class, noting that TL1A “is a key cytokine that spans innate and adaptive mucosal inflammation and also directly influences fibroblast and epithelial biology, contributing to intestinal fibrosis and barrier dysfunction.”

Because therapies in the class simultaneously target inflammatory and fibrotic pathways, “TL1A inhibition offers the potential for more durable disease control than conventional cytokine-directed therapies,” he said.

But, noted Axelrad, it is early in duvakitug’s development. “We certainly need a larger cohort in a phase 3 study with maintenance data,” he said.

Jairath disclosed having financial relationships with AbbVie, Alimentiv, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Asieris Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Avoro Capital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Endpoint Health, Enthera, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Flagship Pioneering, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos NV, Genentech, Gilde Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Innomar, JAMP, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Metacrine, Mylan, Pandion Therapeutics, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Protagonist Therapeutics, Reistone Biopharma, Roche, Roivant, Sandoz, Second Genome, Shire, Sorriso Pharmaceuticals, Syndegen, Takeda, TD Securities, Teva, Topivert, Ventyx Biosciences, and Vividion Therapeutics. Axelrad reported receiving research grants from BioFire Diagnostics, Genentech, Janssen, and Takeda; consultant, advisory board fees or honorarium from Abbvie, Abviax, Adiso, BioFire Diagnostics, Biomerieux, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Vedanta.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

TOPLINE: The Veterans Health Administration implemented 18 regional Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs), where remote clinicians deliver virtual mental health care, addressing staffing gaps amid increasing demand and workforce shortages. Early implementation showed promise in improving access, with program benefits extending beyond temporary staffing solutions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Semistructured interviews were conducted with 36 CRH mental health leaders across all 18 regions.

• A rapid qualitative approach was used, incorporating templated summaries and matrix analysis.

• Participants included leads responsible for implementation and coordination, as well as Chief Mental Health Officers overseeing facility-based services.

• Regional leaders collaborated through executive meetings to ensure appropriate mental health practitioner assignments and effective service delivery to facilities in need.

TAKEAWAY:

• The CRH program demonstrated 3 key values: enhanced integration compared with community care, expanded specialty mental health services in rural areas, and improved provider recruitment and satisfaction.

• Leaders argued that the program could prevent unnecessary delays for veterans who might experience longer wait times for mental health services in the community.

• Mental health practitioners can work virtually across multiple health care systems, with hybrid schedules combining on-site and virtual care delivery.

• The program attracted numerous qualified applicants for virtual care.

IN PRACTICE: “Mental health leaders’ perspectives on CRH value suggest the program is more than a contingency staffing solution for mental health care access challenges, but also potentially offers additional benefits that could be leveraged to improve mental health care services more generally," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation in Los Angeles. It was published online in Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.

LIMITATIONS: The researchers identified lower productivity among CRH staff compared with facility staff, indicating unused capacity. The program's rapid national implementation may have contributed to challenges, as hubs were established quickly, potentially before fully determining regional demand. Some facilities requiring services may have lacked the necessary infrastructure for timely implementation.

 DISCLOSURES: This work received support from the Veterans Health Administration Primary Care Analytics Team, funded by the Veterans Health Administration Office of Primary Care. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. Government.

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

TOPLINE: The Veterans Health Administration implemented 18 regional Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs), where remote clinicians deliver virtual mental health care, addressing staffing gaps amid increasing demand and workforce shortages. Early implementation showed promise in improving access, with program benefits extending beyond temporary staffing solutions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Semistructured interviews were conducted with 36 CRH mental health leaders across all 18 regions.

• A rapid qualitative approach was used, incorporating templated summaries and matrix analysis.

• Participants included leads responsible for implementation and coordination, as well as Chief Mental Health Officers overseeing facility-based services.

• Regional leaders collaborated through executive meetings to ensure appropriate mental health practitioner assignments and effective service delivery to facilities in need.

TAKEAWAY:

• The CRH program demonstrated 3 key values: enhanced integration compared with community care, expanded specialty mental health services in rural areas, and improved provider recruitment and satisfaction.

• Leaders argued that the program could prevent unnecessary delays for veterans who might experience longer wait times for mental health services in the community.

• Mental health practitioners can work virtually across multiple health care systems, with hybrid schedules combining on-site and virtual care delivery.

• The program attracted numerous qualified applicants for virtual care.

IN PRACTICE: “Mental health leaders’ perspectives on CRH value suggest the program is more than a contingency staffing solution for mental health care access challenges, but also potentially offers additional benefits that could be leveraged to improve mental health care services more generally," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation in Los Angeles. It was published online in Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.

LIMITATIONS: The researchers identified lower productivity among CRH staff compared with facility staff, indicating unused capacity. The program's rapid national implementation may have contributed to challenges, as hubs were established quickly, potentially before fully determining regional demand. Some facilities requiring services may have lacked the necessary infrastructure for timely implementation.

 DISCLOSURES: This work received support from the Veterans Health Administration Primary Care Analytics Team, funded by the Veterans Health Administration Office of Primary Care. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. Government.

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

TOPLINE: The Veterans Health Administration implemented 18 regional Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs), where remote clinicians deliver virtual mental health care, addressing staffing gaps amid increasing demand and workforce shortages. Early implementation showed promise in improving access, with program benefits extending beyond temporary staffing solutions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Semistructured interviews were conducted with 36 CRH mental health leaders across all 18 regions.

• A rapid qualitative approach was used, incorporating templated summaries and matrix analysis.

• Participants included leads responsible for implementation and coordination, as well as Chief Mental Health Officers overseeing facility-based services.

• Regional leaders collaborated through executive meetings to ensure appropriate mental health practitioner assignments and effective service delivery to facilities in need.

TAKEAWAY:

• The CRH program demonstrated 3 key values: enhanced integration compared with community care, expanded specialty mental health services in rural areas, and improved provider recruitment and satisfaction.

• Leaders argued that the program could prevent unnecessary delays for veterans who might experience longer wait times for mental health services in the community.

• Mental health practitioners can work virtually across multiple health care systems, with hybrid schedules combining on-site and virtual care delivery.

• The program attracted numerous qualified applicants for virtual care.

IN PRACTICE: “Mental health leaders’ perspectives on CRH value suggest the program is more than a contingency staffing solution for mental health care access challenges, but also potentially offers additional benefits that could be leveraged to improve mental health care services more generally," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation in Los Angeles. It was published online in Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.

LIMITATIONS: The researchers identified lower productivity among CRH staff compared with facility staff, indicating unused capacity. The program's rapid national implementation may have contributed to challenges, as hubs were established quickly, potentially before fully determining regional demand. Some facilities requiring services may have lacked the necessary infrastructure for timely implementation.

 DISCLOSURES: This work received support from the Veterans Health Administration Primary Care Analytics Team, funded by the Veterans Health Administration Office of Primary Care. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. Government.

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

TOPLINE: Psychiatric disorders affect 37.8% of veteran vs 37.3% of nonveteran in a study of > 42,000 women aged ≥ 65 years. Most differences between veterans and nonveterans were statistically insignificant after removing confounders.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers analyzed 42,031 Women's Health Initiative (WHI) participants aged > 65 years at enrollment (1993-1998), including 1,512 veterans and 40,519 non-veterans, through linked WHI-Medicare databases with approximately 15 years of follow-up.

• Analysis included multivariable logistic and Cox regression models to evaluate characteristics associated with prevalent and incident psychiatric disorders, respectively.

• Participants were followed from WHI enrollment until first psychiatric diagnosis, with censoring at death, end of follow-up, or December 31, 2013.

• Investigators examined relationships between individual-level and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status indicators with psychiatric disorders before and after stratification by veteran status.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of psychiatric disorders was 37.3%, with an incidence rate of 25.5 per 1,000 person-years, showing no significant differences between veterans and non-veterans (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.06).

• There was a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders for women veterans with technical, sales, or administrative occupations (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.72; 95 % CI, 1.02, 2.89) and those with “other” occupations (aOR, 2.09; 95 % CI, 1.13, 3.88) when compared with women veterans with managerial or professional occupations.

• Mood and anxiety disorders emerged as the leading types of psychiatric conditions among both veteran and nonveteran women.

IN PRACTICE: "Although interaction effects by veteran status were nonsignificant,” the authors of the study explained, “lower education, household income, and neighborhood socioeconomic status were associated with higher frequencies of psychiatric disorders only among women non-veterans.”

SOURCE: The study was led by Jack Tsai and the US Department of Veterans Affairs National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans in Washington, DC. It was published online in Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS: The study faced several limitations including potential selection and survival biases, as findings correspond only to Women's Health Initiative participants who survived until age 65 or later. Information bias likely occurred due to self-reported measures and sole reliance on International Classification of Disease, 9th revision, Clinical Modification diagnostic codes from Medicare claims. Additionally, socioeconomic status indicators assessed at enrollment may not reflect early life or midlife exposures that could influence psychiatric diagnoses.

 DISCLOSURES: The Women’s Health Initiative program received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through grants 75N92021D00001, 75N92021D00002, 75N92021D00003, 75N92021D00004, and 75N92021D00005.

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

TOPLINE: Psychiatric disorders affect 37.8% of veteran vs 37.3% of nonveteran in a study of > 42,000 women aged ≥ 65 years. Most differences between veterans and nonveterans were statistically insignificant after removing confounders.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers analyzed 42,031 Women's Health Initiative (WHI) participants aged > 65 years at enrollment (1993-1998), including 1,512 veterans and 40,519 non-veterans, through linked WHI-Medicare databases with approximately 15 years of follow-up.

• Analysis included multivariable logistic and Cox regression models to evaluate characteristics associated with prevalent and incident psychiatric disorders, respectively.

• Participants were followed from WHI enrollment until first psychiatric diagnosis, with censoring at death, end of follow-up, or December 31, 2013.

• Investigators examined relationships between individual-level and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status indicators with psychiatric disorders before and after stratification by veteran status.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of psychiatric disorders was 37.3%, with an incidence rate of 25.5 per 1,000 person-years, showing no significant differences between veterans and non-veterans (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.06).

• There was a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders for women veterans with technical, sales, or administrative occupations (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.72; 95 % CI, 1.02, 2.89) and those with “other” occupations (aOR, 2.09; 95 % CI, 1.13, 3.88) when compared with women veterans with managerial or professional occupations.

• Mood and anxiety disorders emerged as the leading types of psychiatric conditions among both veteran and nonveteran women.

IN PRACTICE: "Although interaction effects by veteran status were nonsignificant,” the authors of the study explained, “lower education, household income, and neighborhood socioeconomic status were associated with higher frequencies of psychiatric disorders only among women non-veterans.”

SOURCE: The study was led by Jack Tsai and the US Department of Veterans Affairs National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans in Washington, DC. It was published online in Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS: The study faced several limitations including potential selection and survival biases, as findings correspond only to Women's Health Initiative participants who survived until age 65 or later. Information bias likely occurred due to self-reported measures and sole reliance on International Classification of Disease, 9th revision, Clinical Modification diagnostic codes from Medicare claims. Additionally, socioeconomic status indicators assessed at enrollment may not reflect early life or midlife exposures that could influence psychiatric diagnoses.

 DISCLOSURES: The Women’s Health Initiative program received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through grants 75N92021D00001, 75N92021D00002, 75N92021D00003, 75N92021D00004, and 75N92021D00005.

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

TOPLINE: Psychiatric disorders affect 37.8% of veteran vs 37.3% of nonveteran in a study of > 42,000 women aged ≥ 65 years. Most differences between veterans and nonveterans were statistically insignificant after removing confounders.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers analyzed 42,031 Women's Health Initiative (WHI) participants aged > 65 years at enrollment (1993-1998), including 1,512 veterans and 40,519 non-veterans, through linked WHI-Medicare databases with approximately 15 years of follow-up.

• Analysis included multivariable logistic and Cox regression models to evaluate characteristics associated with prevalent and incident psychiatric disorders, respectively.

• Participants were followed from WHI enrollment until first psychiatric diagnosis, with censoring at death, end of follow-up, or December 31, 2013.

• Investigators examined relationships between individual-level and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status indicators with psychiatric disorders before and after stratification by veteran status.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall prevalence of psychiatric disorders was 37.3%, with an incidence rate of 25.5 per 1,000 person-years, showing no significant differences between veterans and non-veterans (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.06).

• There was a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders for women veterans with technical, sales, or administrative occupations (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.72; 95 % CI, 1.02, 2.89) and those with “other” occupations (aOR, 2.09; 95 % CI, 1.13, 3.88) when compared with women veterans with managerial or professional occupations.

• Mood and anxiety disorders emerged as the leading types of psychiatric conditions among both veteran and nonveteran women.

IN PRACTICE: "Although interaction effects by veteran status were nonsignificant,” the authors of the study explained, “lower education, household income, and neighborhood socioeconomic status were associated with higher frequencies of psychiatric disorders only among women non-veterans.”

SOURCE: The study was led by Jack Tsai and the US Department of Veterans Affairs National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans in Washington, DC. It was published online in Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS: The study faced several limitations including potential selection and survival biases, as findings correspond only to Women's Health Initiative participants who survived until age 65 or later. Information bias likely occurred due to self-reported measures and sole reliance on International Classification of Disease, 9th revision, Clinical Modification diagnostic codes from Medicare claims. Additionally, socioeconomic status indicators assessed at enrollment may not reflect early life or midlife exposures that could influence psychiatric diagnoses.

 DISCLOSURES: The Women’s Health Initiative program received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through grants 75N92021D00001, 75N92021D00002, 75N92021D00003, 75N92021D00004, and 75N92021D00005.

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