Words including death, die, dying, or stillborn were frequently replaced by euphemisms in meetings between clinicians and families of critically ill children, based on data from 33 family meetings that involved discussions of death.

Clear communication is essential in discussing death with patients and families and current consensus guidelines recommend against use of euphemisms; data also suggest that patients and families prefer clear and direct language, wrote Margaret H. Barlet, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

However, data on the language used in discussions of death in neonatal or pediatric contexts are limited, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed conversations between clinicians and parents of critically ill children. The study participants included 20 parents of 13 infants with neurological conditions who were hospitalized in a pediatric ICU in a single center in the southeastern United States between September 2018 and September 2020. Family meetings were scheduled to discuss prognosis and whether to start, not start, or discontinue life-sustaining treatment. The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. The median age of the parents was 28.5 years; 60% identified as Black, 40% as White, and 10% as Asian; with some selecting more than one race.

For all 13 infants, one parent identified as the infant’s mother, and another parent identified as the father for seven of the infants. The median gestational age of the infants was 37 weeks; 54% were female, and the median hospital stay was 86 days.

Twelve infants (92%) required mechanical ventilation, six required chest compressions, and five had a do-not-attempt resuscitation order placed. Two infants died during the hospital admission process.

The primary outcome of the study was language used to reference death during family meetings between doctors and families. In the family conversations, death was referenced 406 times (275 times by clinicians and 131 times by family members).

Families were more likely than were clinicians to use the words die, death, dying, or stillborn; these terms appeared in 19 of 131 references by families and 13 of 275 references by clinicians (15% vs. 5%).

In addition to a category for use of words such as die, death, dying, or stillborn, the researchers identified four types of euphemisms used in place of these terms. They characterized the types of euphemisms as survival framing (for example, not live), colloquialisms (for example, pass away), medical jargon or use of physiologic terms (for example, code event or irrecoverable heart rate drop) and the use of pronouns without an antecedent (for example, it might happen soon).

Overall, 92% of references to death in the conversations were euphemistic. Medical jargon was the most common type of euphemism used by clinicians (118 of 275 references, 43%), while colloquialism was the most common type used by family members (44 of 131 references, 34%).

The results are consistent with limited research on this topic and show the high rates of euphemistic language used in discussions of death, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Although our work did not directly evaluate the comparative clarity of different ways to reference death, our results raise questions about what language is most clear,” they said. The researchers proposed that their classification of euphemistic language may provide a framework for the use of language in discussions of death and may prompt clinicians to notice the language they use and hear from patients and families. “Empirically evaluating the perceived clarity of euphemism types and their effects on shared decision-making should be a priority for future study and should be used to inform interventions for improving communication in this context,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single institution and the exclusion of non-English speaking families, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers studied only what was said, therefore “questions about speaker motivation, listener understanding, and the effects of language choice on decision-making remain unanswered,” they added.

However, the results reflect the frequent use of euphemisms by both clinicians and families, and more research is needed to assess the effect of language on understanding, decision-making, and doctor-patient relationships, the researchers concluded.
 

Euphemisms can create confusion but may increase empathy

“Ms. Barlet and colleagues provide further consideration of types of speech that may obscure a clinician’s intended meaning or distract from their true point in the context of family discussions about critically ill patients,” Michael B. Pitt, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial. Using a euphemism such as “pass on” instead of “die” may be an intentional choice by physicians to use less harsh language but it may still cause confusion, they noted.

The study showed how frequently physicians use euphemisms to talk about death but was distinctive in the inclusion of data on language use by families as well, they said.

“This pattern of use identified among the infants’ families may indicate that despite the clinical recommendation that end-of-life discussions avoid the use of euphemisms, it may be worth noting and responding to families’ language preferences accordingly once it is clear they have expressed understanding that the clinician is speaking of death,” they said. For example, if a family is consistently using softer terminology, clinicians should consider responding with similar terms, rather than using medical jargon or the words death or dying, they wrote.

“As the authors note, family preferences for this type of discussion are an important target for future research aimed at optimizing family-centered communication,” the editorialists added.
 

Families seek clarity in communication

“Clinicians have an important role in helping parents of seriously ill children understand their child’s health condition and make value-driven decisions about care,” Jennifer W. Mack, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview. “The words that clinicians use can have a significant impact on the knowledge parents take away from encounters and the decisions they make. While there is evidence of euphemistic language in the adult setting, there is limited information about this in children,” said Dr. Mack, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Mack said she was not entirely surprised that in the current study, clinician language often includes medical jargon and an avoidance of direct language about death. “This is consistent with what I have seen in clinical practice,” she said. “One striking aspect of the study is that parents used terms like death or die more often than clinicians, and they sometimes used these terms as a way to clarify what the clinician was saying. This suggests to me that parents often want clarity, even if the information is very difficult,” she said.

The key message of the study is that clinicians should pay attention to the words they use to talk about the possibility of death and recognize the tendency of many clinicians to fall back on medical jargon, said Dr. Mack.

“My personal belief is that it is possible to be both clear and compassionate, and clinicians should strive for both in these conversations, to support families and help them make their best decisions for their children,” she said. “We need to remember a single communication strategy or choice of words is not likely to feel supportive to every family; what is helpful for one family may feel painful to another,” she emphasized. “Being willing to listen to the needs they express and their own language choice can help us to be responsive to individual needs,” she added.

An important next step for research is to learn more about what families experience as supportive during conversations with clinicians about death and dying, Dr. Mack said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The researchers, editorial authors, and Dr. Mack had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Words including death, die, dying, or stillborn were frequently replaced by euphemisms in meetings between clinicians and families of critically ill children, based on data from 33 family meetings that involved discussions of death.

Clear communication is essential in discussing death with patients and families and current consensus guidelines recommend against use of euphemisms; data also suggest that patients and families prefer clear and direct language, wrote Margaret H. Barlet, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

However, data on the language used in discussions of death in neonatal or pediatric contexts are limited, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed conversations between clinicians and parents of critically ill children. The study participants included 20 parents of 13 infants with neurological conditions who were hospitalized in a pediatric ICU in a single center in the southeastern United States between September 2018 and September 2020. Family meetings were scheduled to discuss prognosis and whether to start, not start, or discontinue life-sustaining treatment. The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. The median age of the parents was 28.5 years; 60% identified as Black, 40% as White, and 10% as Asian; with some selecting more than one race.

For all 13 infants, one parent identified as the infant’s mother, and another parent identified as the father for seven of the infants. The median gestational age of the infants was 37 weeks; 54% were female, and the median hospital stay was 86 days.

Twelve infants (92%) required mechanical ventilation, six required chest compressions, and five had a do-not-attempt resuscitation order placed. Two infants died during the hospital admission process.

The primary outcome of the study was language used to reference death during family meetings between doctors and families. In the family conversations, death was referenced 406 times (275 times by clinicians and 131 times by family members).

Families were more likely than were clinicians to use the words die, death, dying, or stillborn; these terms appeared in 19 of 131 references by families and 13 of 275 references by clinicians (15% vs. 5%).

In addition to a category for use of words such as die, death, dying, or stillborn, the researchers identified four types of euphemisms used in place of these terms. They characterized the types of euphemisms as survival framing (for example, not live), colloquialisms (for example, pass away), medical jargon or use of physiologic terms (for example, code event or irrecoverable heart rate drop) and the use of pronouns without an antecedent (for example, it might happen soon).

Overall, 92% of references to death in the conversations were euphemistic. Medical jargon was the most common type of euphemism used by clinicians (118 of 275 references, 43%), while colloquialism was the most common type used by family members (44 of 131 references, 34%).

The results are consistent with limited research on this topic and show the high rates of euphemistic language used in discussions of death, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Although our work did not directly evaluate the comparative clarity of different ways to reference death, our results raise questions about what language is most clear,” they said. The researchers proposed that their classification of euphemistic language may provide a framework for the use of language in discussions of death and may prompt clinicians to notice the language they use and hear from patients and families. “Empirically evaluating the perceived clarity of euphemism types and their effects on shared decision-making should be a priority for future study and should be used to inform interventions for improving communication in this context,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single institution and the exclusion of non-English speaking families, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers studied only what was said, therefore “questions about speaker motivation, listener understanding, and the effects of language choice on decision-making remain unanswered,” they added.

However, the results reflect the frequent use of euphemisms by both clinicians and families, and more research is needed to assess the effect of language on understanding, decision-making, and doctor-patient relationships, the researchers concluded.
 

Euphemisms can create confusion but may increase empathy

“Ms. Barlet and colleagues provide further consideration of types of speech that may obscure a clinician’s intended meaning or distract from their true point in the context of family discussions about critically ill patients,” Michael B. Pitt, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial. Using a euphemism such as “pass on” instead of “die” may be an intentional choice by physicians to use less harsh language but it may still cause confusion, they noted.

The study showed how frequently physicians use euphemisms to talk about death but was distinctive in the inclusion of data on language use by families as well, they said.

“This pattern of use identified among the infants’ families may indicate that despite the clinical recommendation that end-of-life discussions avoid the use of euphemisms, it may be worth noting and responding to families’ language preferences accordingly once it is clear they have expressed understanding that the clinician is speaking of death,” they said. For example, if a family is consistently using softer terminology, clinicians should consider responding with similar terms, rather than using medical jargon or the words death or dying, they wrote.

“As the authors note, family preferences for this type of discussion are an important target for future research aimed at optimizing family-centered communication,” the editorialists added.
 

Families seek clarity in communication

“Clinicians have an important role in helping parents of seriously ill children understand their child’s health condition and make value-driven decisions about care,” Jennifer W. Mack, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview. “The words that clinicians use can have a significant impact on the knowledge parents take away from encounters and the decisions they make. While there is evidence of euphemistic language in the adult setting, there is limited information about this in children,” said Dr. Mack, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Mack said she was not entirely surprised that in the current study, clinician language often includes medical jargon and an avoidance of direct language about death. “This is consistent with what I have seen in clinical practice,” she said. “One striking aspect of the study is that parents used terms like death or die more often than clinicians, and they sometimes used these terms as a way to clarify what the clinician was saying. This suggests to me that parents often want clarity, even if the information is very difficult,” she said.

The key message of the study is that clinicians should pay attention to the words they use to talk about the possibility of death and recognize the tendency of many clinicians to fall back on medical jargon, said Dr. Mack.

“My personal belief is that it is possible to be both clear and compassionate, and clinicians should strive for both in these conversations, to support families and help them make their best decisions for their children,” she said. “We need to remember a single communication strategy or choice of words is not likely to feel supportive to every family; what is helpful for one family may feel painful to another,” she emphasized. “Being willing to listen to the needs they express and their own language choice can help us to be responsive to individual needs,” she added.

An important next step for research is to learn more about what families experience as supportive during conversations with clinicians about death and dying, Dr. Mack said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The researchers, editorial authors, and Dr. Mack had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Words including death, die, dying, or stillborn were frequently replaced by euphemisms in meetings between clinicians and families of critically ill children, based on data from 33 family meetings that involved discussions of death.

Clear communication is essential in discussing death with patients and families and current consensus guidelines recommend against use of euphemisms; data also suggest that patients and families prefer clear and direct language, wrote Margaret H. Barlet, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

However, data on the language used in discussions of death in neonatal or pediatric contexts are limited, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed conversations between clinicians and parents of critically ill children. The study participants included 20 parents of 13 infants with neurological conditions who were hospitalized in a pediatric ICU in a single center in the southeastern United States between September 2018 and September 2020. Family meetings were scheduled to discuss prognosis and whether to start, not start, or discontinue life-sustaining treatment. The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. The median age of the parents was 28.5 years; 60% identified as Black, 40% as White, and 10% as Asian; with some selecting more than one race.

For all 13 infants, one parent identified as the infant’s mother, and another parent identified as the father for seven of the infants. The median gestational age of the infants was 37 weeks; 54% were female, and the median hospital stay was 86 days.

Twelve infants (92%) required mechanical ventilation, six required chest compressions, and five had a do-not-attempt resuscitation order placed. Two infants died during the hospital admission process.

The primary outcome of the study was language used to reference death during family meetings between doctors and families. In the family conversations, death was referenced 406 times (275 times by clinicians and 131 times by family members).

Families were more likely than were clinicians to use the words die, death, dying, or stillborn; these terms appeared in 19 of 131 references by families and 13 of 275 references by clinicians (15% vs. 5%).

In addition to a category for use of words such as die, death, dying, or stillborn, the researchers identified four types of euphemisms used in place of these terms. They characterized the types of euphemisms as survival framing (for example, not live), colloquialisms (for example, pass away), medical jargon or use of physiologic terms (for example, code event or irrecoverable heart rate drop) and the use of pronouns without an antecedent (for example, it might happen soon).

Overall, 92% of references to death in the conversations were euphemistic. Medical jargon was the most common type of euphemism used by clinicians (118 of 275 references, 43%), while colloquialism was the most common type used by family members (44 of 131 references, 34%).

The results are consistent with limited research on this topic and show the high rates of euphemistic language used in discussions of death, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Although our work did not directly evaluate the comparative clarity of different ways to reference death, our results raise questions about what language is most clear,” they said. The researchers proposed that their classification of euphemistic language may provide a framework for the use of language in discussions of death and may prompt clinicians to notice the language they use and hear from patients and families. “Empirically evaluating the perceived clarity of euphemism types and their effects on shared decision-making should be a priority for future study and should be used to inform interventions for improving communication in this context,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single institution and the exclusion of non-English speaking families, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers studied only what was said, therefore “questions about speaker motivation, listener understanding, and the effects of language choice on decision-making remain unanswered,” they added.

However, the results reflect the frequent use of euphemisms by both clinicians and families, and more research is needed to assess the effect of language on understanding, decision-making, and doctor-patient relationships, the researchers concluded.
 

Euphemisms can create confusion but may increase empathy

“Ms. Barlet and colleagues provide further consideration of types of speech that may obscure a clinician’s intended meaning or distract from their true point in the context of family discussions about critically ill patients,” Michael B. Pitt, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial. Using a euphemism such as “pass on” instead of “die” may be an intentional choice by physicians to use less harsh language but it may still cause confusion, they noted.

The study showed how frequently physicians use euphemisms to talk about death but was distinctive in the inclusion of data on language use by families as well, they said.

“This pattern of use identified among the infants’ families may indicate that despite the clinical recommendation that end-of-life discussions avoid the use of euphemisms, it may be worth noting and responding to families’ language preferences accordingly once it is clear they have expressed understanding that the clinician is speaking of death,” they said. For example, if a family is consistently using softer terminology, clinicians should consider responding with similar terms, rather than using medical jargon or the words death or dying, they wrote.

“As the authors note, family preferences for this type of discussion are an important target for future research aimed at optimizing family-centered communication,” the editorialists added.
 

Families seek clarity in communication

“Clinicians have an important role in helping parents of seriously ill children understand their child’s health condition and make value-driven decisions about care,” Jennifer W. Mack, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview. “The words that clinicians use can have a significant impact on the knowledge parents take away from encounters and the decisions they make. While there is evidence of euphemistic language in the adult setting, there is limited information about this in children,” said Dr. Mack, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Mack said she was not entirely surprised that in the current study, clinician language often includes medical jargon and an avoidance of direct language about death. “This is consistent with what I have seen in clinical practice,” she said. “One striking aspect of the study is that parents used terms like death or die more often than clinicians, and they sometimes used these terms as a way to clarify what the clinician was saying. This suggests to me that parents often want clarity, even if the information is very difficult,” she said.

The key message of the study is that clinicians should pay attention to the words they use to talk about the possibility of death and recognize the tendency of many clinicians to fall back on medical jargon, said Dr. Mack.

“My personal belief is that it is possible to be both clear and compassionate, and clinicians should strive for both in these conversations, to support families and help them make their best decisions for their children,” she said. “We need to remember a single communication strategy or choice of words is not likely to feel supportive to every family; what is helpful for one family may feel painful to another,” she emphasized. “Being willing to listen to the needs they express and their own language choice can help us to be responsive to individual needs,” she added.

An important next step for research is to learn more about what families experience as supportive during conversations with clinicians about death and dying, Dr. Mack said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The researchers, editorial authors, and Dr. Mack had no financial conflicts to disclose.

CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.

As a result, psychiatric comorbidities are often seen among pediatric patients with neurological conditions, and pediatric neurologists can play an important role in diagnosis and management of such disorders, according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
 

The ‘second pandemic’

Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.

Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
 

A unique opportunity

“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.

Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.

She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.

There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.

However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.

In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
 

A unique perspective

Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.

She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.

During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.

She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”

Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.

As a result, psychiatric comorbidities are often seen among pediatric patients with neurological conditions, and pediatric neurologists can play an important role in diagnosis and management of such disorders, according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
 

The ‘second pandemic’

Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.

Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
 

A unique opportunity

“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.

Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.

She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.

There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.

However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.

In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
 

A unique perspective

Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.

She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.

During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.

She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”

Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.

As a result, psychiatric comorbidities are often seen among pediatric patients with neurological conditions, and pediatric neurologists can play an important role in diagnosis and management of such disorders, according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
 

The ‘second pandemic’

Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.

Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
 

A unique opportunity

“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.

Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.

She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.

There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.

However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.

In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
 

A unique perspective

Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.

She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.

During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.

She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”

Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Results from an observational study exploring the link between dairy intake and risk of cardiovascular disease events in patients with stable angina pectoris suggest different dairy products may have different health effects.

The study, which analyzed a cohort from the Western Norway B-vitamin Intervention Trial (WENBIT), showed that higher dairy and milk consumption were associated with increased risk of mortality and stroke and butter was associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but that cheese was associated with a decreased risk of AMI.

The findings are published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

“Dairy is a diverse food group, and different dairy products should be considered individually and not only in combination,” senior author Vegard Lysne, MSc, of the Centre for Nutrition, University of Bergen and the department of heart disease, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, said in an interview.

“Today’s dietary recommendations regarding dairy products are mainly based on the nutrient contents, with a focus on calcium, iodine, and saturated fat,” Dr. Lysne said.

Previous studies have indicated that different dairy products may influence cardiovascular health differently, even in opposite directions, but this has primarily been investigated in healthy populations, he noted.

“Data on CVD patients are scarce, and therefore, we wanted to investigate this in a population of patients with established CVD. Our primary aim in this study was to explore how the intake of different dairy products might be linked to cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in such a population,” he said.

The researchers analyzed 1,929 patients who had stable angina pectoris and were participants in WENBIT, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective secondary prevention study investigating the effect of vitamin B treatment on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.

The majority, 80%, of the cohort were men, and the mean age of the patients was 61.8 years. In addition to stable angina pectoris, 47% of the cohort had hypertension, 31% had diabetes, and 29% were smokers. Most (90%) of the patients were taking acetylsalicylic acid, 90% were taking statins, and 77% were on beta-blockers.

Dietary data were obtained by a food frequency questionnaire that was given to patients at their first visit and returned either by mail or at a follow-up visit 1 month after the initial visit.

Frequency of consumption was given as times per day, week, month, or never consumed. Quantity was estimated using units such as slices, pieces, etc., or household measures.

The milk variable included high-fat, low-fat, skimmed, or unspecified milk. Cheese included brown cheese, which is a Norwegian caramel-like cheese made from whey, milk, and cream; white cheese; cream cheeses; cooked or processed cheeses; and boxed cheeses.

Total dairy was calculated as the sum, in grams, of milk, cheese, yogurt, cream, sour cream, ice cream, and butter.

Median follow-up times were 5.2 years for stroke, 7.8 years for AMI, and 14.1 years for mortality.

Patients who reported a higher intake of total dairy and milk had a higher risk of stroke and mortality.

Among those who reported a higher intake of total dairy, the hazard ratio for stroke was 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.27).

Among those who reported a higher intake of milk, the HR for stroke was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.27).

Cardiovascular mortality appeared heightened in those who reported a higher intake of total dairy (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.12) and in those who reported a higher intake of milk (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

Similarly, all-cause mortality was greater in those who reported higher total dairy consumption (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11) and in those who reported higher milk consumption (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10).

Higher cheese intake was inversely associated with AMI risk (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.02).

Butter was associated with increased AMI risk (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.97-1.24), as well as all-cause mortality (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20).

Dr. Lysne stressed that the results are from an observational study, and that doctors should not change what they tell their patients based on the results alone.

“There is a growing literature indicating that cheese might be linked to reduced cardiovascular risk, but if this is a causal effect, or if cheese is a marker of higher socioeconomic status and a healthier overall lifestyle remains unknown,” he said.

“I would like for future studies to evaluate dairy products on an individual basis, rather than a collective one. If the data suggest that different dairy products have distinct health effects, this should be implemented in dietary recommendations,” Dr. Lysne added.
 

Dairy a heterogeneous food group

“These results are not really surprising, because we have been hearing advice to consume low-fat milk, avoid whole milk, and so on, for a long time, so this study confirms what we already know,” Qi Sun, MD, ScD, associate professor in the departments of nutrition and epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, told this news organization.

“However, I would be more specific about milk, and I don’t see any data regarding the fat content of the different types of milk. Their data only show the association for total milk. I would like to see data for low-fat milk versus high-fat milk in relation to heart disease,” Dr. Sun said.

“They also say in their conclusion that cheese was associated with a decreased risk of acute myocardial infarction, but as the hazard ratio shows, this is a nonsignificant association,” he said.

Dr. Sun agrees that dairy is a heterogeneous group of foods and that it is best to consider each type separately with regard to cardiovascular health.

“For example, heavy cream contains tons of saturated fat, butter contains a lot of saturated fat. Then there is yogurt, which also comes in regular, reduced-fat and low-fat varieties, which is a fantastic food. I would say it’s very healthy and is associated with a lower risk of heart disease and diabetes, so a good type of dairy. Yogurt and fermented dairy products should be beneficial, at least more so than full-fat milk or butter. I think butter and full-fat milk are still the primary dairy foods for people to avoid to reduce risk for cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Lysne and Dr. Sun have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from an observational study exploring the link between dairy intake and risk of cardiovascular disease events in patients with stable angina pectoris suggest different dairy products may have different health effects.

The study, which analyzed a cohort from the Western Norway B-vitamin Intervention Trial (WENBIT), showed that higher dairy and milk consumption were associated with increased risk of mortality and stroke and butter was associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but that cheese was associated with a decreased risk of AMI.

The findings are published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

“Dairy is a diverse food group, and different dairy products should be considered individually and not only in combination,” senior author Vegard Lysne, MSc, of the Centre for Nutrition, University of Bergen and the department of heart disease, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, said in an interview.

“Today’s dietary recommendations regarding dairy products are mainly based on the nutrient contents, with a focus on calcium, iodine, and saturated fat,” Dr. Lysne said.

Previous studies have indicated that different dairy products may influence cardiovascular health differently, even in opposite directions, but this has primarily been investigated in healthy populations, he noted.

“Data on CVD patients are scarce, and therefore, we wanted to investigate this in a population of patients with established CVD. Our primary aim in this study was to explore how the intake of different dairy products might be linked to cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in such a population,” he said.

The researchers analyzed 1,929 patients who had stable angina pectoris and were participants in WENBIT, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective secondary prevention study investigating the effect of vitamin B treatment on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.

The majority, 80%, of the cohort were men, and the mean age of the patients was 61.8 years. In addition to stable angina pectoris, 47% of the cohort had hypertension, 31% had diabetes, and 29% were smokers. Most (90%) of the patients were taking acetylsalicylic acid, 90% were taking statins, and 77% were on beta-blockers.

Dietary data were obtained by a food frequency questionnaire that was given to patients at their first visit and returned either by mail or at a follow-up visit 1 month after the initial visit.

Frequency of consumption was given as times per day, week, month, or never consumed. Quantity was estimated using units such as slices, pieces, etc., or household measures.

The milk variable included high-fat, low-fat, skimmed, or unspecified milk. Cheese included brown cheese, which is a Norwegian caramel-like cheese made from whey, milk, and cream; white cheese; cream cheeses; cooked or processed cheeses; and boxed cheeses.

Total dairy was calculated as the sum, in grams, of milk, cheese, yogurt, cream, sour cream, ice cream, and butter.

Median follow-up times were 5.2 years for stroke, 7.8 years for AMI, and 14.1 years for mortality.

Patients who reported a higher intake of total dairy and milk had a higher risk of stroke and mortality.

Among those who reported a higher intake of total dairy, the hazard ratio for stroke was 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.27).

Among those who reported a higher intake of milk, the HR for stroke was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.27).

Cardiovascular mortality appeared heightened in those who reported a higher intake of total dairy (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.12) and in those who reported a higher intake of milk (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

Similarly, all-cause mortality was greater in those who reported higher total dairy consumption (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11) and in those who reported higher milk consumption (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10).

Higher cheese intake was inversely associated with AMI risk (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.02).

Butter was associated with increased AMI risk (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.97-1.24), as well as all-cause mortality (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20).

Dr. Lysne stressed that the results are from an observational study, and that doctors should not change what they tell their patients based on the results alone.

“There is a growing literature indicating that cheese might be linked to reduced cardiovascular risk, but if this is a causal effect, or if cheese is a marker of higher socioeconomic status and a healthier overall lifestyle remains unknown,” he said.

“I would like for future studies to evaluate dairy products on an individual basis, rather than a collective one. If the data suggest that different dairy products have distinct health effects, this should be implemented in dietary recommendations,” Dr. Lysne added.
 

Dairy a heterogeneous food group

“These results are not really surprising, because we have been hearing advice to consume low-fat milk, avoid whole milk, and so on, for a long time, so this study confirms what we already know,” Qi Sun, MD, ScD, associate professor in the departments of nutrition and epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, told this news organization.

“However, I would be more specific about milk, and I don’t see any data regarding the fat content of the different types of milk. Their data only show the association for total milk. I would like to see data for low-fat milk versus high-fat milk in relation to heart disease,” Dr. Sun said.

“They also say in their conclusion that cheese was associated with a decreased risk of acute myocardial infarction, but as the hazard ratio shows, this is a nonsignificant association,” he said.

Dr. Sun agrees that dairy is a heterogeneous group of foods and that it is best to consider each type separately with regard to cardiovascular health.

“For example, heavy cream contains tons of saturated fat, butter contains a lot of saturated fat. Then there is yogurt, which also comes in regular, reduced-fat and low-fat varieties, which is a fantastic food. I would say it’s very healthy and is associated with a lower risk of heart disease and diabetes, so a good type of dairy. Yogurt and fermented dairy products should be beneficial, at least more so than full-fat milk or butter. I think butter and full-fat milk are still the primary dairy foods for people to avoid to reduce risk for cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Lysne and Dr. Sun have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from an observational study exploring the link between dairy intake and risk of cardiovascular disease events in patients with stable angina pectoris suggest different dairy products may have different health effects.

The study, which analyzed a cohort from the Western Norway B-vitamin Intervention Trial (WENBIT), showed that higher dairy and milk consumption were associated with increased risk of mortality and stroke and butter was associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but that cheese was associated with a decreased risk of AMI.

The findings are published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

“Dairy is a diverse food group, and different dairy products should be considered individually and not only in combination,” senior author Vegard Lysne, MSc, of the Centre for Nutrition, University of Bergen and the department of heart disease, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, said in an interview.

“Today’s dietary recommendations regarding dairy products are mainly based on the nutrient contents, with a focus on calcium, iodine, and saturated fat,” Dr. Lysne said.

Previous studies have indicated that different dairy products may influence cardiovascular health differently, even in opposite directions, but this has primarily been investigated in healthy populations, he noted.

“Data on CVD patients are scarce, and therefore, we wanted to investigate this in a population of patients with established CVD. Our primary aim in this study was to explore how the intake of different dairy products might be linked to cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in such a population,” he said.

The researchers analyzed 1,929 patients who had stable angina pectoris and were participants in WENBIT, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective secondary prevention study investigating the effect of vitamin B treatment on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.

The majority, 80%, of the cohort were men, and the mean age of the patients was 61.8 years. In addition to stable angina pectoris, 47% of the cohort had hypertension, 31% had diabetes, and 29% were smokers. Most (90%) of the patients were taking acetylsalicylic acid, 90% were taking statins, and 77% were on beta-blockers.

Dietary data were obtained by a food frequency questionnaire that was given to patients at their first visit and returned either by mail or at a follow-up visit 1 month after the initial visit.

Frequency of consumption was given as times per day, week, month, or never consumed. Quantity was estimated using units such as slices, pieces, etc., or household measures.

The milk variable included high-fat, low-fat, skimmed, or unspecified milk. Cheese included brown cheese, which is a Norwegian caramel-like cheese made from whey, milk, and cream; white cheese; cream cheeses; cooked or processed cheeses; and boxed cheeses.

Total dairy was calculated as the sum, in grams, of milk, cheese, yogurt, cream, sour cream, ice cream, and butter.

Median follow-up times were 5.2 years for stroke, 7.8 years for AMI, and 14.1 years for mortality.

Patients who reported a higher intake of total dairy and milk had a higher risk of stroke and mortality.

Among those who reported a higher intake of total dairy, the hazard ratio for stroke was 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.27).

Among those who reported a higher intake of milk, the HR for stroke was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.27).

Cardiovascular mortality appeared heightened in those who reported a higher intake of total dairy (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.12) and in those who reported a higher intake of milk (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

Similarly, all-cause mortality was greater in those who reported higher total dairy consumption (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11) and in those who reported higher milk consumption (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10).

Higher cheese intake was inversely associated with AMI risk (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.02).

Butter was associated with increased AMI risk (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.97-1.24), as well as all-cause mortality (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20).

Dr. Lysne stressed that the results are from an observational study, and that doctors should not change what they tell their patients based on the results alone.

“There is a growing literature indicating that cheese might be linked to reduced cardiovascular risk, but if this is a causal effect, or if cheese is a marker of higher socioeconomic status and a healthier overall lifestyle remains unknown,” he said.

“I would like for future studies to evaluate dairy products on an individual basis, rather than a collective one. If the data suggest that different dairy products have distinct health effects, this should be implemented in dietary recommendations,” Dr. Lysne added.
 

Dairy a heterogeneous food group

“These results are not really surprising, because we have been hearing advice to consume low-fat milk, avoid whole milk, and so on, for a long time, so this study confirms what we already know,” Qi Sun, MD, ScD, associate professor in the departments of nutrition and epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, told this news organization.

“However, I would be more specific about milk, and I don’t see any data regarding the fat content of the different types of milk. Their data only show the association for total milk. I would like to see data for low-fat milk versus high-fat milk in relation to heart disease,” Dr. Sun said.

“They also say in their conclusion that cheese was associated with a decreased risk of acute myocardial infarction, but as the hazard ratio shows, this is a nonsignificant association,” he said.

Dr. Sun agrees that dairy is a heterogeneous group of foods and that it is best to consider each type separately with regard to cardiovascular health.

“For example, heavy cream contains tons of saturated fat, butter contains a lot of saturated fat. Then there is yogurt, which also comes in regular, reduced-fat and low-fat varieties, which is a fantastic food. I would say it’s very healthy and is associated with a lower risk of heart disease and diabetes, so a good type of dairy. Yogurt and fermented dairy products should be beneficial, at least more so than full-fat milk or butter. I think butter and full-fat milk are still the primary dairy foods for people to avoid to reduce risk for cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Lysne and Dr. Sun have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One quiet afternoon at a mobile outreach clinic, where I had been working on the West Side of Chicago, a young man without a home to go to, and clothes he kept as clean as he could, came to get a refill of buprenorphine. The drug, which works on the same opioid receptors as heroin, was helping him feel normal. It was also probably helping to keep him alive, as a study found that taking it after an overdose was associated with a one-third reduction in all-cause mortality.

He was still using drugs, but now only a few days a week instead of multiple times a day. He had put on some weight and looked visibly healthier.

I gave him his prescription and thanked him for coming back. As he got up to leave, he turned to our outreach team and said, “Thank you for being here and caring about us. Because a lot of people don’t. They don’t care if we live or die.”

But a lot of people do care and are still failing him and others who use drugs. When I first started treating addictions, I was taught to cut people like him off treatment. We could give patients a medication, but they had to follow the rules, first and foremost to stop using drugs. Keep using, even if you were using less and your health was improving, and I would have to dismiss you from the practice. This was the kind of “tough love” that many doctors have been taught, and are, in many cases, still being taught today. Even though we know that this approach does not work.

For too long, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and the broader American public have favored abstinence only treatment, criminalization, and prohibition. The proof that this approach does not work is in the spectacular overdose crisis we are experiencing in this country, as CDC data documents. While we continue to blame drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine (and thirty years ago, crack and heroin), we fail to see how our approach contributes to these overdose deaths.

For instance, treating with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with detox alone. But only one in three centers offer these medications, the gold standard of care. We continue to imprison people who use drugs, even though we have known for 15 years that the risk of overdose is exponentially higher in the first few weeks after people leave prison.

Patients who use opioids safely for decades are also arbitrarily being forced off their prescriptions because too many clinicians equate opioid use with opioid addiction, despite the fact that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose. And prohibition has led to a change in the drug supply that is now dominated by methamphetamine and fentanyl, substances far more deadly than the ones we demonized and seized decades ago.

We have tried and failed to rid the country of many drugs. We never will. Human beings will seek mind-altering substances, from caffeine to alcohol to hallucinogens. But we can stop the grim massacre of people who use drugs. We have the tools. What we lack is moral clarity.

In lecture after lecture of physicians and medical students, I hear the refrain that patients are not often “ready” for treatment. There’s nothing that doctors can do, they say, if the patient doesn’t want help. Yet they do not examine why that may be. Are we offering the help that they need? Time and again I have seen that if we meet people where they are, we can help virtually anyone.
 

Tools for fighting the opioid crisis

The reason our policies have failed is because we have not confronted a simple truth: We must care more about saving and improving the lives of people who use drugs than stopping drug use. With that framework, the approach is clear and multifactorial. First, we must make methadone treatment less draconian. Methadone, like buprenorphine, has been associated with a large reduction in all-cause mortality for people who have a history of overdose.

In this country, to access it, however, you must go to a clinic daily for the first 90 days of treatment and jump through hoops that often make it impossible to have a job and accomplish other goals. Other countries have safely moved methadone to primary care offices, and so should we. The other main drug for opioid addiction, buprenorphine, requires a special license to prescribe, even though it is far safer than other opioids that any physician can prescribe. This requirement has been weakened, but it should be removed entirely.

Moreover, the DEA conducts regular audits of buprenorphine prescribers in an effort to prevent diversion, discouraging doctors from prescribing it. This despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overdose on buprenorphine alone, and a study suggests that diversion of buprenorphine is associated with a lower overdose risk in a community by making the medication available to more people who can benefit.

Treatment is not the only way we can help people using drugs. Naloxone, an overdose rescue drug, should be available in every first aid kit and free at pharmacies without a prescription. Clean needles and pipes for people who use can help prevent infections, potentially mitigating the severity of outbreaks. Overdose prevention sites, where people can safely use, should be opened across the country.

We need accessible drug testing so people do not accidentally overdose and so they can know what they are using. We should stop sending people to jail for drug use when we know that it is too often tantamount to a death sentence, and offer effective medical treatment to anyone who is incarcerated.

All these interventions remain controversial within medicine and in the larger culture. If our metric, however, is lives saved and harm avoided, these are sure-fire approaches.

Right now, I am focused on clinical care and changing the culture of medicine, where we have opportunities to help but too often do harm instead. The impact of a shift in mentality would be huge, because we would realize there is no one we cannot help, only millions of people we do not listen to. But this is a national crisis and requires a national response. Until we are clear that our goal should and must be to stem the mounting deaths and harms above all else, we will continue to fail.

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures.

One quiet afternoon at a mobile outreach clinic, where I had been working on the West Side of Chicago, a young man without a home to go to, and clothes he kept as clean as he could, came to get a refill of buprenorphine. The drug, which works on the same opioid receptors as heroin, was helping him feel normal. It was also probably helping to keep him alive, as a study found that taking it after an overdose was associated with a one-third reduction in all-cause mortality.

He was still using drugs, but now only a few days a week instead of multiple times a day. He had put on some weight and looked visibly healthier.

I gave him his prescription and thanked him for coming back. As he got up to leave, he turned to our outreach team and said, “Thank you for being here and caring about us. Because a lot of people don’t. They don’t care if we live or die.”

But a lot of people do care and are still failing him and others who use drugs. When I first started treating addictions, I was taught to cut people like him off treatment. We could give patients a medication, but they had to follow the rules, first and foremost to stop using drugs. Keep using, even if you were using less and your health was improving, and I would have to dismiss you from the practice. This was the kind of “tough love” that many doctors have been taught, and are, in many cases, still being taught today. Even though we know that this approach does not work.

For too long, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and the broader American public have favored abstinence only treatment, criminalization, and prohibition. The proof that this approach does not work is in the spectacular overdose crisis we are experiencing in this country, as CDC data documents. While we continue to blame drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine (and thirty years ago, crack and heroin), we fail to see how our approach contributes to these overdose deaths.

For instance, treating with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with detox alone. But only one in three centers offer these medications, the gold standard of care. We continue to imprison people who use drugs, even though we have known for 15 years that the risk of overdose is exponentially higher in the first few weeks after people leave prison.

Patients who use opioids safely for decades are also arbitrarily being forced off their prescriptions because too many clinicians equate opioid use with opioid addiction, despite the fact that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose. And prohibition has led to a change in the drug supply that is now dominated by methamphetamine and fentanyl, substances far more deadly than the ones we demonized and seized decades ago.

We have tried and failed to rid the country of many drugs. We never will. Human beings will seek mind-altering substances, from caffeine to alcohol to hallucinogens. But we can stop the grim massacre of people who use drugs. We have the tools. What we lack is moral clarity.

In lecture after lecture of physicians and medical students, I hear the refrain that patients are not often “ready” for treatment. There’s nothing that doctors can do, they say, if the patient doesn’t want help. Yet they do not examine why that may be. Are we offering the help that they need? Time and again I have seen that if we meet people where they are, we can help virtually anyone.
 

Tools for fighting the opioid crisis

The reason our policies have failed is because we have not confronted a simple truth: We must care more about saving and improving the lives of people who use drugs than stopping drug use. With that framework, the approach is clear and multifactorial. First, we must make methadone treatment less draconian. Methadone, like buprenorphine, has been associated with a large reduction in all-cause mortality for people who have a history of overdose.

In this country, to access it, however, you must go to a clinic daily for the first 90 days of treatment and jump through hoops that often make it impossible to have a job and accomplish other goals. Other countries have safely moved methadone to primary care offices, and so should we. The other main drug for opioid addiction, buprenorphine, requires a special license to prescribe, even though it is far safer than other opioids that any physician can prescribe. This requirement has been weakened, but it should be removed entirely.

Moreover, the DEA conducts regular audits of buprenorphine prescribers in an effort to prevent diversion, discouraging doctors from prescribing it. This despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overdose on buprenorphine alone, and a study suggests that diversion of buprenorphine is associated with a lower overdose risk in a community by making the medication available to more people who can benefit.

Treatment is not the only way we can help people using drugs. Naloxone, an overdose rescue drug, should be available in every first aid kit and free at pharmacies without a prescription. Clean needles and pipes for people who use can help prevent infections, potentially mitigating the severity of outbreaks. Overdose prevention sites, where people can safely use, should be opened across the country.

We need accessible drug testing so people do not accidentally overdose and so they can know what they are using. We should stop sending people to jail for drug use when we know that it is too often tantamount to a death sentence, and offer effective medical treatment to anyone who is incarcerated.

All these interventions remain controversial within medicine and in the larger culture. If our metric, however, is lives saved and harm avoided, these are sure-fire approaches.

Right now, I am focused on clinical care and changing the culture of medicine, where we have opportunities to help but too often do harm instead. The impact of a shift in mentality would be huge, because we would realize there is no one we cannot help, only millions of people we do not listen to. But this is a national crisis and requires a national response. Until we are clear that our goal should and must be to stem the mounting deaths and harms above all else, we will continue to fail.

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures.

One quiet afternoon at a mobile outreach clinic, where I had been working on the West Side of Chicago, a young man without a home to go to, and clothes he kept as clean as he could, came to get a refill of buprenorphine. The drug, which works on the same opioid receptors as heroin, was helping him feel normal. It was also probably helping to keep him alive, as a study found that taking it after an overdose was associated with a one-third reduction in all-cause mortality.

He was still using drugs, but now only a few days a week instead of multiple times a day. He had put on some weight and looked visibly healthier.

I gave him his prescription and thanked him for coming back. As he got up to leave, he turned to our outreach team and said, “Thank you for being here and caring about us. Because a lot of people don’t. They don’t care if we live or die.”

But a lot of people do care and are still failing him and others who use drugs. When I first started treating addictions, I was taught to cut people like him off treatment. We could give patients a medication, but they had to follow the rules, first and foremost to stop using drugs. Keep using, even if you were using less and your health was improving, and I would have to dismiss you from the practice. This was the kind of “tough love” that many doctors have been taught, and are, in many cases, still being taught today. Even though we know that this approach does not work.

For too long, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and the broader American public have favored abstinence only treatment, criminalization, and prohibition. The proof that this approach does not work is in the spectacular overdose crisis we are experiencing in this country, as CDC data documents. While we continue to blame drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine (and thirty years ago, crack and heroin), we fail to see how our approach contributes to these overdose deaths.

For instance, treating with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with detox alone. But only one in three centers offer these medications, the gold standard of care. We continue to imprison people who use drugs, even though we have known for 15 years that the risk of overdose is exponentially higher in the first few weeks after people leave prison.

Patients who use opioids safely for decades are also arbitrarily being forced off their prescriptions because too many clinicians equate opioid use with opioid addiction, despite the fact that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose. And prohibition has led to a change in the drug supply that is now dominated by methamphetamine and fentanyl, substances far more deadly than the ones we demonized and seized decades ago.

We have tried and failed to rid the country of many drugs. We never will. Human beings will seek mind-altering substances, from caffeine to alcohol to hallucinogens. But we can stop the grim massacre of people who use drugs. We have the tools. What we lack is moral clarity.

In lecture after lecture of physicians and medical students, I hear the refrain that patients are not often “ready” for treatment. There’s nothing that doctors can do, they say, if the patient doesn’t want help. Yet they do not examine why that may be. Are we offering the help that they need? Time and again I have seen that if we meet people where they are, we can help virtually anyone.
 

Tools for fighting the opioid crisis

The reason our policies have failed is because we have not confronted a simple truth: We must care more about saving and improving the lives of people who use drugs than stopping drug use. With that framework, the approach is clear and multifactorial. First, we must make methadone treatment less draconian. Methadone, like buprenorphine, has been associated with a large reduction in all-cause mortality for people who have a history of overdose.

In this country, to access it, however, you must go to a clinic daily for the first 90 days of treatment and jump through hoops that often make it impossible to have a job and accomplish other goals. Other countries have safely moved methadone to primary care offices, and so should we. The other main drug for opioid addiction, buprenorphine, requires a special license to prescribe, even though it is far safer than other opioids that any physician can prescribe. This requirement has been weakened, but it should be removed entirely.

Moreover, the DEA conducts regular audits of buprenorphine prescribers in an effort to prevent diversion, discouraging doctors from prescribing it. This despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overdose on buprenorphine alone, and a study suggests that diversion of buprenorphine is associated with a lower overdose risk in a community by making the medication available to more people who can benefit.

Treatment is not the only way we can help people using drugs. Naloxone, an overdose rescue drug, should be available in every first aid kit and free at pharmacies without a prescription. Clean needles and pipes for people who use can help prevent infections, potentially mitigating the severity of outbreaks. Overdose prevention sites, where people can safely use, should be opened across the country.

We need accessible drug testing so people do not accidentally overdose and so they can know what they are using. We should stop sending people to jail for drug use when we know that it is too often tantamount to a death sentence, and offer effective medical treatment to anyone who is incarcerated.

All these interventions remain controversial within medicine and in the larger culture. If our metric, however, is lives saved and harm avoided, these are sure-fire approaches.

Right now, I am focused on clinical care and changing the culture of medicine, where we have opportunities to help but too often do harm instead. The impact of a shift in mentality would be huge, because we would realize there is no one we cannot help, only millions of people we do not listen to. But this is a national crisis and requires a national response. Until we are clear that our goal should and must be to stem the mounting deaths and harms above all else, we will continue to fail.

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures.

In the management of acute and chronic stroke, smartphone apps enhance communication between first responders and waiting hospital staff and reduce door-to-needle time, according to a literature review.

“In clinical practice, guideline-driven patient care is very important in improving diagnosis and outcomes, and apps provide a very practical and easy way to check available guidelines,” senior author Fabio Pilato, MD, a neurologist at Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, told this news organization.

The review was published  in the Journal of Stroke.
 

Reviewing the literature

“My colleagues and I wanted to discover whether smartphone apps, besides just facilitating communication between doctors and their patients, could improve patient care,” said Dr. Pilato. “We wanted to see if there were any apps that could guide clinical decisions according to guidelines and whether there were some being used in acute stroke management,” he added.

The investigators reviewed 43 studies of stroke-related mobile phone apps that were designed for the clinical management of stroke between June 1, 2007, when the first iPhone was introduced, and Jan. 31, 2022.

The apps were classified into the following three groups, according to their purpose: primary prevention apps, acute stroke management apps, and postacute stroke apps.
 

Prevention and management

The investigators found one primary prevention app, the Stroke Riskometer, that was based on an algorithm derived from the Framingham Stroke Risk Score and was designed to educate patients about diet, physical activity, and the warning signs of stroke. However, their review failed to show that the app was beneficial, compared with standard cardiovascular risk reduction.

Apps appeared to aid acute stroke management, according to the researchers. Prehospital apps, such as iLAMA, Smartphone-Assisted Pre-Hospital Medical Information System, FAST-ED, Egyptian Stroke Network, Act Fast, and the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app were found to speed up stroke recognition, activate emergency medical services for speedier transport to the hospital, and facilitate communication with in-hospital stroke teams. All these prehospital apps reduced door-to-needle time.

The JOIN app also was shown to significantly reduce door-to-needle time, compared with no app support, in several studies. JOIN consists of a chat, a DICOM viewer, and an encrypted two-way video system for video calls between practitioners, as well as a milestones time stamp to record every step from home to hospital transportation to therapy onset. 

StopStroke, another app that focuses on instant communication among physicians and allows real-time sharing of clinical data of stroke patients, reduced door-to-image and door-to-needle time, compared with no app.

Act Fast, which uses a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) calculator, a thrombolysis checklist, and a toolbox to share images and notes among practitioners involved in the decision-making process, decreased door-to-needle time by 16 minutes, compared with no app.

In a study of medical residents, adherence to guidelines was higher in participants who used the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app, compared with those who did not. Door-to-needle time also was reduced by 16 minutes in the app-assisted group, compared with controls.
 

Postacute stroke apps

The Rehabilitation Guardian app, consisting of a health reminder, consultation, health information, and patient diary, gives medical information and provides rehabilitation exercises. Patients can enter their clinical information, and the medical staff can access it and assist with the rehab process remotely.

As for apps for chronic management and secondary prevention, Dr. Pilato and colleagues found that the PRESTRO app, which combines motivational support for a healthy lifestyle and tells patients to take their medications and measure their blood pressure, successfully got patients to be more physically active, compared with those who did not use the app.

Another app for secondary prevention, the Korea University Health Monitoring System for Stroke (KUHMS2), reduced blood pressure and glucose levels in patients who used it, compared with those who did not.

Lose It, a weight loss app, is an electronic food journal that shows the values of the macronutrients of foods that the patient consumes, as well as a daily calorie count. The Engaging Everyday Activities app effectively reminds patients who have had transient ischemic attacks about daily activities that can reduce their risk for a recurrent attack.

Movies4Stroke features educational videos about first aid, rehabilitation, how to improve swallowing, and stroke risk factors.

AFib 2gether allows patients to enter their clinical data and calculates their annual stroke risk scores. The information is provided to a health care provider before the next visit to help the patient make an informed decision about anticoagulation therapy.

“We believe that the widespread use of smartphones and apps may improve patient care in every part of the world and in particular in those parts where updated guideline consultation is not readily available. However, in our study we found that apps to implement guidelines by a clinical decision support system are still lacking. Our hope is that these apps will increase in the future,” said Dr. Pilato.
 

No panacea

Commenting on this review for this article, Amy Guzik, MD, associate professor of neurology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., said that all physicians are looking for opportunities to use technology, especially in stroke, to diagnose and treat patients in the best way they can.

“Figuring out ways to increase efficiency and get the word out to our patients is very important to us and is probably why there are so many apps out there,” said Dr. Guzik.

“There are some ways such apps could be particularly useful. One is in remote hospitals that might not have a neurologist. Helping with the diagnosis and determining what is a bad stroke that needs to go to a higher level of medical care, or whether it is something the local hospital could take care of, would be useful,” said Dr. Guzik.

“Also helping EMS figure out which hospital to go to, or once they are on their way, being able to talk to the neurologist or neurosurgeon or the emergency room doctor and make a plan before the patient gets here, so we can expedite care when the patient arrives, is where apps can be particularly useful,” she added.

There are limitations to what apps can do, however. In the case of stroke, patients may often have important barriers that do not allow them to use apps at all, she said.

“Regardless of how they are being taken care of, a lot of our stroke patients will have problems with technology. A stroke can make texting difficult. Patients may have language difficulties, weakness, or cognitive impairment. They are relying on caregivers. All of this makes it difficult for a tech solution to be the automatic solution, unless things are done in a thoughtful way to make sure that it is appropriate for stroke patients.

“Also, there are a lot of elderly patients who may not necessarily be the most tech savvy and do not have as much digital literacy as younger patients. Another limitation to consider is that some people may not even have easy access to technology. So we must make sure that this is all done with an equity focus,” said Dr. Guzik.

The study was funded by the Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA). Dr. Pilato and Dr. Guzik reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the management of acute and chronic stroke, smartphone apps enhance communication between first responders and waiting hospital staff and reduce door-to-needle time, according to a literature review.

“In clinical practice, guideline-driven patient care is very important in improving diagnosis and outcomes, and apps provide a very practical and easy way to check available guidelines,” senior author Fabio Pilato, MD, a neurologist at Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, told this news organization.

The review was published  in the Journal of Stroke.
 

Reviewing the literature

“My colleagues and I wanted to discover whether smartphone apps, besides just facilitating communication between doctors and their patients, could improve patient care,” said Dr. Pilato. “We wanted to see if there were any apps that could guide clinical decisions according to guidelines and whether there were some being used in acute stroke management,” he added.

The investigators reviewed 43 studies of stroke-related mobile phone apps that were designed for the clinical management of stroke between June 1, 2007, when the first iPhone was introduced, and Jan. 31, 2022.

The apps were classified into the following three groups, according to their purpose: primary prevention apps, acute stroke management apps, and postacute stroke apps.
 

Prevention and management

The investigators found one primary prevention app, the Stroke Riskometer, that was based on an algorithm derived from the Framingham Stroke Risk Score and was designed to educate patients about diet, physical activity, and the warning signs of stroke. However, their review failed to show that the app was beneficial, compared with standard cardiovascular risk reduction.

Apps appeared to aid acute stroke management, according to the researchers. Prehospital apps, such as iLAMA, Smartphone-Assisted Pre-Hospital Medical Information System, FAST-ED, Egyptian Stroke Network, Act Fast, and the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app were found to speed up stroke recognition, activate emergency medical services for speedier transport to the hospital, and facilitate communication with in-hospital stroke teams. All these prehospital apps reduced door-to-needle time.

The JOIN app also was shown to significantly reduce door-to-needle time, compared with no app support, in several studies. JOIN consists of a chat, a DICOM viewer, and an encrypted two-way video system for video calls between practitioners, as well as a milestones time stamp to record every step from home to hospital transportation to therapy onset. 

StopStroke, another app that focuses on instant communication among physicians and allows real-time sharing of clinical data of stroke patients, reduced door-to-image and door-to-needle time, compared with no app.

Act Fast, which uses a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) calculator, a thrombolysis checklist, and a toolbox to share images and notes among practitioners involved in the decision-making process, decreased door-to-needle time by 16 minutes, compared with no app.

In a study of medical residents, adherence to guidelines was higher in participants who used the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app, compared with those who did not. Door-to-needle time also was reduced by 16 minutes in the app-assisted group, compared with controls.
 

Postacute stroke apps

The Rehabilitation Guardian app, consisting of a health reminder, consultation, health information, and patient diary, gives medical information and provides rehabilitation exercises. Patients can enter their clinical information, and the medical staff can access it and assist with the rehab process remotely.

As for apps for chronic management and secondary prevention, Dr. Pilato and colleagues found that the PRESTRO app, which combines motivational support for a healthy lifestyle and tells patients to take their medications and measure their blood pressure, successfully got patients to be more physically active, compared with those who did not use the app.

Another app for secondary prevention, the Korea University Health Monitoring System for Stroke (KUHMS2), reduced blood pressure and glucose levels in patients who used it, compared with those who did not.

Lose It, a weight loss app, is an electronic food journal that shows the values of the macronutrients of foods that the patient consumes, as well as a daily calorie count. The Engaging Everyday Activities app effectively reminds patients who have had transient ischemic attacks about daily activities that can reduce their risk for a recurrent attack.

Movies4Stroke features educational videos about first aid, rehabilitation, how to improve swallowing, and stroke risk factors.

AFib 2gether allows patients to enter their clinical data and calculates their annual stroke risk scores. The information is provided to a health care provider before the next visit to help the patient make an informed decision about anticoagulation therapy.

“We believe that the widespread use of smartphones and apps may improve patient care in every part of the world and in particular in those parts where updated guideline consultation is not readily available. However, in our study we found that apps to implement guidelines by a clinical decision support system are still lacking. Our hope is that these apps will increase in the future,” said Dr. Pilato.
 

No panacea

Commenting on this review for this article, Amy Guzik, MD, associate professor of neurology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., said that all physicians are looking for opportunities to use technology, especially in stroke, to diagnose and treat patients in the best way they can.

“Figuring out ways to increase efficiency and get the word out to our patients is very important to us and is probably why there are so many apps out there,” said Dr. Guzik.

“There are some ways such apps could be particularly useful. One is in remote hospitals that might not have a neurologist. Helping with the diagnosis and determining what is a bad stroke that needs to go to a higher level of medical care, or whether it is something the local hospital could take care of, would be useful,” said Dr. Guzik.

“Also helping EMS figure out which hospital to go to, or once they are on their way, being able to talk to the neurologist or neurosurgeon or the emergency room doctor and make a plan before the patient gets here, so we can expedite care when the patient arrives, is where apps can be particularly useful,” she added.

There are limitations to what apps can do, however. In the case of stroke, patients may often have important barriers that do not allow them to use apps at all, she said.

“Regardless of how they are being taken care of, a lot of our stroke patients will have problems with technology. A stroke can make texting difficult. Patients may have language difficulties, weakness, or cognitive impairment. They are relying on caregivers. All of this makes it difficult for a tech solution to be the automatic solution, unless things are done in a thoughtful way to make sure that it is appropriate for stroke patients.

“Also, there are a lot of elderly patients who may not necessarily be the most tech savvy and do not have as much digital literacy as younger patients. Another limitation to consider is that some people may not even have easy access to technology. So we must make sure that this is all done with an equity focus,” said Dr. Guzik.

The study was funded by the Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA). Dr. Pilato and Dr. Guzik reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the management of acute and chronic stroke, smartphone apps enhance communication between first responders and waiting hospital staff and reduce door-to-needle time, according to a literature review.

“In clinical practice, guideline-driven patient care is very important in improving diagnosis and outcomes, and apps provide a very practical and easy way to check available guidelines,” senior author Fabio Pilato, MD, a neurologist at Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, told this news organization.

The review was published  in the Journal of Stroke.
 

Reviewing the literature

“My colleagues and I wanted to discover whether smartphone apps, besides just facilitating communication between doctors and their patients, could improve patient care,” said Dr. Pilato. “We wanted to see if there were any apps that could guide clinical decisions according to guidelines and whether there were some being used in acute stroke management,” he added.

The investigators reviewed 43 studies of stroke-related mobile phone apps that were designed for the clinical management of stroke between June 1, 2007, when the first iPhone was introduced, and Jan. 31, 2022.

The apps were classified into the following three groups, according to their purpose: primary prevention apps, acute stroke management apps, and postacute stroke apps.
 

Prevention and management

The investigators found one primary prevention app, the Stroke Riskometer, that was based on an algorithm derived from the Framingham Stroke Risk Score and was designed to educate patients about diet, physical activity, and the warning signs of stroke. However, their review failed to show that the app was beneficial, compared with standard cardiovascular risk reduction.

Apps appeared to aid acute stroke management, according to the researchers. Prehospital apps, such as iLAMA, Smartphone-Assisted Pre-Hospital Medical Information System, FAST-ED, Egyptian Stroke Network, Act Fast, and the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app were found to speed up stroke recognition, activate emergency medical services for speedier transport to the hospital, and facilitate communication with in-hospital stroke teams. All these prehospital apps reduced door-to-needle time.

The JOIN app also was shown to significantly reduce door-to-needle time, compared with no app support, in several studies. JOIN consists of a chat, a DICOM viewer, and an encrypted two-way video system for video calls between practitioners, as well as a milestones time stamp to record every step from home to hospital transportation to therapy onset. 

StopStroke, another app that focuses on instant communication among physicians and allows real-time sharing of clinical data of stroke patients, reduced door-to-image and door-to-needle time, compared with no app.

Act Fast, which uses a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) calculator, a thrombolysis checklist, and a toolbox to share images and notes among practitioners involved in the decision-making process, decreased door-to-needle time by 16 minutes, compared with no app.

In a study of medical residents, adherence to guidelines was higher in participants who used the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app, compared with those who did not. Door-to-needle time also was reduced by 16 minutes in the app-assisted group, compared with controls.
 

Postacute stroke apps

The Rehabilitation Guardian app, consisting of a health reminder, consultation, health information, and patient diary, gives medical information and provides rehabilitation exercises. Patients can enter their clinical information, and the medical staff can access it and assist with the rehab process remotely.

As for apps for chronic management and secondary prevention, Dr. Pilato and colleagues found that the PRESTRO app, which combines motivational support for a healthy lifestyle and tells patients to take their medications and measure their blood pressure, successfully got patients to be more physically active, compared with those who did not use the app.

Another app for secondary prevention, the Korea University Health Monitoring System for Stroke (KUHMS2), reduced blood pressure and glucose levels in patients who used it, compared with those who did not.

Lose It, a weight loss app, is an electronic food journal that shows the values of the macronutrients of foods that the patient consumes, as well as a daily calorie count. The Engaging Everyday Activities app effectively reminds patients who have had transient ischemic attacks about daily activities that can reduce their risk for a recurrent attack.

Movies4Stroke features educational videos about first aid, rehabilitation, how to improve swallowing, and stroke risk factors.

AFib 2gether allows patients to enter their clinical data and calculates their annual stroke risk scores. The information is provided to a health care provider before the next visit to help the patient make an informed decision about anticoagulation therapy.

“We believe that the widespread use of smartphones and apps may improve patient care in every part of the world and in particular in those parts where updated guideline consultation is not readily available. However, in our study we found that apps to implement guidelines by a clinical decision support system are still lacking. Our hope is that these apps will increase in the future,” said Dr. Pilato.
 

No panacea

Commenting on this review for this article, Amy Guzik, MD, associate professor of neurology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., said that all physicians are looking for opportunities to use technology, especially in stroke, to diagnose and treat patients in the best way they can.

“Figuring out ways to increase efficiency and get the word out to our patients is very important to us and is probably why there are so many apps out there,” said Dr. Guzik.

“There are some ways such apps could be particularly useful. One is in remote hospitals that might not have a neurologist. Helping with the diagnosis and determining what is a bad stroke that needs to go to a higher level of medical care, or whether it is something the local hospital could take care of, would be useful,” said Dr. Guzik.

“Also helping EMS figure out which hospital to go to, or once they are on their way, being able to talk to the neurologist or neurosurgeon or the emergency room doctor and make a plan before the patient gets here, so we can expedite care when the patient arrives, is where apps can be particularly useful,” she added.

There are limitations to what apps can do, however. In the case of stroke, patients may often have important barriers that do not allow them to use apps at all, she said.

“Regardless of how they are being taken care of, a lot of our stroke patients will have problems with technology. A stroke can make texting difficult. Patients may have language difficulties, weakness, or cognitive impairment. They are relying on caregivers. All of this makes it difficult for a tech solution to be the automatic solution, unless things are done in a thoughtful way to make sure that it is appropriate for stroke patients.

“Also, there are a lot of elderly patients who may not necessarily be the most tech savvy and do not have as much digital literacy as younger patients. Another limitation to consider is that some people may not even have easy access to technology. So we must make sure that this is all done with an equity focus,” said Dr. Guzik.

The study was funded by the Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA). Dr. Pilato and Dr. Guzik reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The results of a phase 2 clinical trial of durvalumab with add-on therapies oleclumab or monalizumab, suggest this novel combination may prove beneficial in patients with unresectable stage 3 non–small-cell lung cancer.

Combinations of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A monoclonal antibody monalizumab led to improved overall response rate and progression-free survival compared to durvalumab alone.

The findings support further study in a phase 3 clinical trial, according to the authors of the study recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Durvalumab is the standard treatment following consolidation therapy of chemoradiotherapy in unresectable stage 3 non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although it extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in the PACIFIC phase 3 study, some patients experience a recurrence, which has led to exploration of immunotherapy combinations.

Oleclumab inhibits the enzyme CD73, found on the surfaces of both tumor and immune cells. Its activity leads to an immunosuppressive effect in the tumor microenvironment, and preclinical studies have shown that it can have an additive antitumor effect when combined with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. A phase 1 study also suggested efficacy. Monalizumab blocks interactions between major histocompatibility complex-E (HLA-E) and an inhibitor receptor. A number of tumors overexpress HLA-E, triggering inhibitor signals that inhibit natural killer and CD8+ T cells.

“COAST was an interesting study that, although not definitive, suggested that the combination of durvalumab with oleclumab or with monalizumab was more effective than durvalumab alone in the consolidation setting after definitive concurrent chemoradiation for patients with stage 3 unresectable NSCLC,” said Nathan Pennell, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

Despite the positive signal, Dr. Pennell expressed some skepticism that the combinations would pass a phase 3 test. He questioned the choice of response rate as the primary endpoint of the phase 2 study, and noted that the durvalumab arm had worse progression-free survival (PFS) than the previous PACIFIC trial. It could be that the clinical characteristics of the study population differed between the two trials, in which case the improved objective response rate (ORR) and PFS results should be encouraging. It’s also possible the COAST trial’s small sample size led to a mismatch between the control and treatment group despite randomization, in which case the findings may not be valid.

“These are the kinds of issues that keep drug developers up at night. There really is no way to know which scenario is correct without doing the larger trial. I do hope though that the phase 3 trials have robust biomarker analysis including PDL1 to make sure the arms are as well matched for known prognostic and predictive markers as possible,” said Dr. Pennell, who is vice chair of clinical research at Taussig Cancer Institute.
 

The study details

The researchers randomized 189 patients to durvalumab, durvalumab plus oleclumab, or durvalumab plus monalizumab between January 2019 and July 2020. After a median follow-up of 11.5 months, there was a higher confirmed objective response rate in the durvalumab plus oleclumab group (30.0%; 95% confidence interval, 18.8%-43.2%) and the durvalumab plus monalizumab group (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7%-48.7%) versus durvalumab alone (17.9%; 95% CI, 9.6%-29.2%).

Compared to durvalumab alone, there was improved PFS in both durvalumab plus oleclumab (stratified hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.72). At 12 months, PFS was 62.6% (95% CI, 48.1-74.2%) for durvalumab plus oleclumab, 72.7% (95% CI, 58.8-82.6%) for durvalumab plus monalizumab, and 33.9% (95% CI, 21.2-47.1%) for durvalumab alone.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca.

The results of a phase 2 clinical trial of durvalumab with add-on therapies oleclumab or monalizumab, suggest this novel combination may prove beneficial in patients with unresectable stage 3 non–small-cell lung cancer.

Combinations of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A monoclonal antibody monalizumab led to improved overall response rate and progression-free survival compared to durvalumab alone.

The findings support further study in a phase 3 clinical trial, according to the authors of the study recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Durvalumab is the standard treatment following consolidation therapy of chemoradiotherapy in unresectable stage 3 non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although it extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in the PACIFIC phase 3 study, some patients experience a recurrence, which has led to exploration of immunotherapy combinations.

Oleclumab inhibits the enzyme CD73, found on the surfaces of both tumor and immune cells. Its activity leads to an immunosuppressive effect in the tumor microenvironment, and preclinical studies have shown that it can have an additive antitumor effect when combined with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. A phase 1 study also suggested efficacy. Monalizumab blocks interactions between major histocompatibility complex-E (HLA-E) and an inhibitor receptor. A number of tumors overexpress HLA-E, triggering inhibitor signals that inhibit natural killer and CD8+ T cells.

“COAST was an interesting study that, although not definitive, suggested that the combination of durvalumab with oleclumab or with monalizumab was more effective than durvalumab alone in the consolidation setting after definitive concurrent chemoradiation for patients with stage 3 unresectable NSCLC,” said Nathan Pennell, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

Despite the positive signal, Dr. Pennell expressed some skepticism that the combinations would pass a phase 3 test. He questioned the choice of response rate as the primary endpoint of the phase 2 study, and noted that the durvalumab arm had worse progression-free survival (PFS) than the previous PACIFIC trial. It could be that the clinical characteristics of the study population differed between the two trials, in which case the improved objective response rate (ORR) and PFS results should be encouraging. It’s also possible the COAST trial’s small sample size led to a mismatch between the control and treatment group despite randomization, in which case the findings may not be valid.

“These are the kinds of issues that keep drug developers up at night. There really is no way to know which scenario is correct without doing the larger trial. I do hope though that the phase 3 trials have robust biomarker analysis including PDL1 to make sure the arms are as well matched for known prognostic and predictive markers as possible,” said Dr. Pennell, who is vice chair of clinical research at Taussig Cancer Institute.
 

The study details

The researchers randomized 189 patients to durvalumab, durvalumab plus oleclumab, or durvalumab plus monalizumab between January 2019 and July 2020. After a median follow-up of 11.5 months, there was a higher confirmed objective response rate in the durvalumab plus oleclumab group (30.0%; 95% confidence interval, 18.8%-43.2%) and the durvalumab plus monalizumab group (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7%-48.7%) versus durvalumab alone (17.9%; 95% CI, 9.6%-29.2%).

Compared to durvalumab alone, there was improved PFS in both durvalumab plus oleclumab (stratified hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.72). At 12 months, PFS was 62.6% (95% CI, 48.1-74.2%) for durvalumab plus oleclumab, 72.7% (95% CI, 58.8-82.6%) for durvalumab plus monalizumab, and 33.9% (95% CI, 21.2-47.1%) for durvalumab alone.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca.

The results of a phase 2 clinical trial of durvalumab with add-on therapies oleclumab or monalizumab, suggest this novel combination may prove beneficial in patients with unresectable stage 3 non–small-cell lung cancer.

Combinations of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A monoclonal antibody monalizumab led to improved overall response rate and progression-free survival compared to durvalumab alone.

The findings support further study in a phase 3 clinical trial, according to the authors of the study recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Durvalumab is the standard treatment following consolidation therapy of chemoradiotherapy in unresectable stage 3 non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although it extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in the PACIFIC phase 3 study, some patients experience a recurrence, which has led to exploration of immunotherapy combinations.

Oleclumab inhibits the enzyme CD73, found on the surfaces of both tumor and immune cells. Its activity leads to an immunosuppressive effect in the tumor microenvironment, and preclinical studies have shown that it can have an additive antitumor effect when combined with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. A phase 1 study also suggested efficacy. Monalizumab blocks interactions between major histocompatibility complex-E (HLA-E) and an inhibitor receptor. A number of tumors overexpress HLA-E, triggering inhibitor signals that inhibit natural killer and CD8+ T cells.

“COAST was an interesting study that, although not definitive, suggested that the combination of durvalumab with oleclumab or with monalizumab was more effective than durvalumab alone in the consolidation setting after definitive concurrent chemoradiation for patients with stage 3 unresectable NSCLC,” said Nathan Pennell, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

Despite the positive signal, Dr. Pennell expressed some skepticism that the combinations would pass a phase 3 test. He questioned the choice of response rate as the primary endpoint of the phase 2 study, and noted that the durvalumab arm had worse progression-free survival (PFS) than the previous PACIFIC trial. It could be that the clinical characteristics of the study population differed between the two trials, in which case the improved objective response rate (ORR) and PFS results should be encouraging. It’s also possible the COAST trial’s small sample size led to a mismatch between the control and treatment group despite randomization, in which case the findings may not be valid.

“These are the kinds of issues that keep drug developers up at night. There really is no way to know which scenario is correct without doing the larger trial. I do hope though that the phase 3 trials have robust biomarker analysis including PDL1 to make sure the arms are as well matched for known prognostic and predictive markers as possible,” said Dr. Pennell, who is vice chair of clinical research at Taussig Cancer Institute.
 

The study details

The researchers randomized 189 patients to durvalumab, durvalumab plus oleclumab, or durvalumab plus monalizumab between January 2019 and July 2020. After a median follow-up of 11.5 months, there was a higher confirmed objective response rate in the durvalumab plus oleclumab group (30.0%; 95% confidence interval, 18.8%-43.2%) and the durvalumab plus monalizumab group (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7%-48.7%) versus durvalumab alone (17.9%; 95% CI, 9.6%-29.2%).

Compared to durvalumab alone, there was improved PFS in both durvalumab plus oleclumab (stratified hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.72). At 12 months, PFS was 62.6% (95% CI, 48.1-74.2%) for durvalumab plus oleclumab, 72.7% (95% CI, 58.8-82.6%) for durvalumab plus monalizumab, and 33.9% (95% CI, 21.2-47.1%) for durvalumab alone.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca.

Pancreatic cancer screening appears to be safe and effective for certain patients with high-risk indications due to genetic susceptibility, according to a prospective multicenter study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Screening in high-risk patients detected high-risk lesions in 0.8% of patients, which was lower than the typical range found in the literature, at 3%, said Andy Silva-Santisteban, MD, a research fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., which is estimated to become the second leading cause by 2030. About 15%-20% of patients are candidates for surgical resection at the time of diagnosis, with survival rates below 10%.

“These statistics have led pancreatic cancer screening to be studied with the goal of detecting earlier stages of the disease to improve survival,” Dr. Silva-Santisteban said. “However, pancreatic cancer screening is not recommended for the general population.”

Pancreatic cancer screening is recommended for patients with increased risk due to genetic susceptibility, yet recent studies have found that screening studies face limitations from factors like small sample sizes, single-center focus, retrospective nature, nonconsecutive accrual of patients, varied inclusion criteria, and use of nonstandardized screening protocols.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Silva-Santisteban and colleagues conducted a prospective multicenter study of pancreatic cancer screening in consecutive high-risk patients at five centers in the United States between 2020 and 2022, also called the Pancreas Scan Study. Dr. Silva-Santisteban presented results from the first round of enrollment, which was awarded the Outstanding Research Award in the Biliary/Pancreas Category for Trainee.

The research team evaluated the yield (low-, moderate-, and high-risk pancreatic pathology), safety, and outcomes of screening. Low-risk pancreas pathology was categorized as fatty pancreas and chronic pancreatitis-like changes. Intermediate-risk was categorized as branch duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or neuroendocrine tumor under 2 cm. High-risk was categorized as main duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (MD-IPMN), pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (PanIN-III)/dysplasia, neuroendocrine tumor over 2 cm, or pancreatic cancer.

Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and had at least one of the following: BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Lynch syndrome plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM); ataxia telangiectasia mutated plus family history of pancreatic cancer; hereditary pancreatitis; or familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) syndrome.

Pancreatic cancer screening appears to be safe and effective for certain patients with high-risk indications due to genetic susceptibility, according to a prospective multicenter study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Screening in high-risk patients detected high-risk lesions in 0.8% of patients, which was lower than the typical range found in the literature, at 3%, said Andy Silva-Santisteban, MD, a research fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., which is estimated to become the second leading cause by 2030. About 15%-20% of patients are candidates for surgical resection at the time of diagnosis, with survival rates below 10%.

“These statistics have led pancreatic cancer screening to be studied with the goal of detecting earlier stages of the disease to improve survival,” Dr. Silva-Santisteban said. “However, pancreatic cancer screening is not recommended for the general population.”

Pancreatic cancer screening is recommended for patients with increased risk due to genetic susceptibility, yet recent studies have found that screening studies face limitations from factors like small sample sizes, single-center focus, retrospective nature, nonconsecutive accrual of patients, varied inclusion criteria, and use of nonstandardized screening protocols.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Silva-Santisteban and colleagues conducted a prospective multicenter study of pancreatic cancer screening in consecutive high-risk patients at five centers in the United States between 2020 and 2022, also called the Pancreas Scan Study. Dr. Silva-Santisteban presented results from the first round of enrollment, which was awarded the Outstanding Research Award in the Biliary/Pancreas Category for Trainee.

The research team evaluated the yield (low-, moderate-, and high-risk pancreatic pathology), safety, and outcomes of screening. Low-risk pancreas pathology was categorized as fatty pancreas and chronic pancreatitis-like changes. Intermediate-risk was categorized as branch duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or neuroendocrine tumor under 2 cm. High-risk was categorized as main duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (MD-IPMN), pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (PanIN-III)/dysplasia, neuroendocrine tumor over 2 cm, or pancreatic cancer.

Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and had at least one of the following: BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Lynch syndrome plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM); ataxia telangiectasia mutated plus family history of pancreatic cancer; hereditary pancreatitis; or familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) syndrome.

Pancreatic cancer screening appears to be safe and effective for certain patients with high-risk indications due to genetic susceptibility, according to a prospective multicenter study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Screening in high-risk patients detected high-risk lesions in 0.8% of patients, which was lower than the typical range found in the literature, at 3%, said Andy Silva-Santisteban, MD, a research fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., which is estimated to become the second leading cause by 2030. About 15%-20% of patients are candidates for surgical resection at the time of diagnosis, with survival rates below 10%.

“These statistics have led pancreatic cancer screening to be studied with the goal of detecting earlier stages of the disease to improve survival,” Dr. Silva-Santisteban said. “However, pancreatic cancer screening is not recommended for the general population.”

Pancreatic cancer screening is recommended for patients with increased risk due to genetic susceptibility, yet recent studies have found that screening studies face limitations from factors like small sample sizes, single-center focus, retrospective nature, nonconsecutive accrual of patients, varied inclusion criteria, and use of nonstandardized screening protocols.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Silva-Santisteban and colleagues conducted a prospective multicenter study of pancreatic cancer screening in consecutive high-risk patients at five centers in the United States between 2020 and 2022, also called the Pancreas Scan Study. Dr. Silva-Santisteban presented results from the first round of enrollment, which was awarded the Outstanding Research Award in the Biliary/Pancreas Category for Trainee.

The research team evaluated the yield (low-, moderate-, and high-risk pancreatic pathology), safety, and outcomes of screening. Low-risk pancreas pathology was categorized as fatty pancreas and chronic pancreatitis-like changes. Intermediate-risk was categorized as branch duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or neuroendocrine tumor under 2 cm. High-risk was categorized as main duct–intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (MD-IPMN), pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (PanIN-III)/dysplasia, neuroendocrine tumor over 2 cm, or pancreatic cancer.

Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and had at least one of the following: BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Lynch syndrome plus a family history of pancreatic cancer; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM); ataxia telangiectasia mutated plus family history of pancreatic cancer; hereditary pancreatitis; or familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) syndrome.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Watto, here with my very good friend, Dr. Paul Williams. It’s time to talk about headaches. We did a great recent podcast on migraines, Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber. One of the quotes from that episode that stayed with me was when he said, “I tell my patients to think about migraine as an irritable old miser set in their ways, and your brain is set in its ways. It doesn’t like changes in routine. It doesn’t like lack of sleep, it doesn’t like being hungry, it doesn’t like being thirsty, and it doesn’t like changes in the weather.” That’s a reminder of the good, old-fashioned primary care tips for taking care of headache.

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right. Conservative supportive management goes by the wayside because we focus on the medications. But I thought that was a really nice way to start the episode.

Dr. Watto: I asked him about cervicogenic headaches, which I guess you have to diagnose by giving a cervical steroid injection and see if the patient feels better, but he said he doesn’t do this. This is expert opinion territory. He asks his patients with chronic headache about cervical neck pain, because if they have it, he goes after it with physical therapy, which can help with the headaches. I thought that was a great pearl that I hadn’t heard before.

Give the audience a pearl from this great episode.

Dr. Williams: We talked about foundational treatments. We reviewed some of the abortive therapies and over-the-counter products. Some patients do quite well with acetaminophen or NSAIDs. We also talked about triptans, which are the standard medicines that we all know about. You can use those in combination, by the way. Patients can take their triptan with the NSAID that works best for them. They don’t have to be used one at a time, trying one and then trying the other one if the first one doesn’t help. Dr. Weber gave us practical guides in terms of which triptans he favors. He mentioned rizatriptan and naratriptan, which is one that I had not used with any frequency. I’ve seen rizatriptan a fair amount and that one seems to be covered by most insurances. He favors those two triptans.

He also reminded us that even though there is theoretical concern for serotonin toxicity because these are serotonergic and you’ll see these scary pop-ups in your electronic health record, that concern is almost purely theoretical. It hasn’t been borne out. They are really safe medications to use. But do use caution if you have a patient with known cardiovascular disease or cerebrovascular disease. We spent a fair amount of time talking about chest pressure as a common side effect. We also talked about some of the newer agents.

Dr. Watto: I wanted to add something about the triptans. Part of the reason he favors rizatriptan and naratriptan is that they are newer. He thinks they tend to have fewer side effects. But he did mention sumatriptan because it comes in the most different formulations. If patients have severe nausea, there is a subcutaneous version of sumatriptan and also an intranasal version.

The new kids on the block are the CGRP receptor antagonists, and they are available for preventive and abortive therapy. The abortive therapies are probably what people will be seeing most often in primary care – ubrogepant and rimegepant. Patients can take ubrogepant for abortive therapy and then repeat it if necessary. That’s similar to what patients are used to with the triptans. Rimegepant is taken once daily for abortive therapy or every other day as a preventive agent. Those are two of the agents that you might see patients taking. I’ve certainly started to see them.

There are also a whole bunch of monoclonal antibodies that affect the CGRP pathway. Those are given either once a month by subcutaneous injection or once every 3 months, and one is an infusion. They are pretty safe, and the big appeal is that they can be used in patients with cardiovascular disease. He also said that he has some patients who take them because triptans can cause the medication overuse side effect, but the CGRP receptor antagonists don’t. It’s an option for some patients to take the CGRP receptor antagonists on certain days for abortive therapy and then they can take the triptans the rest of the month.

Dr. Weber said that in his practice, these new drugs have really been great, which I can imagine, if you’re a specialist, patients have exhausted many of the typical therapies we offer in primary care.

Paul, bring us home here. What else should we tell the audience about? In primary care, what can we offer these patients?

Dr. Williams: A lot of the stuff we can offer works, by the way. It’s exciting to have fancy new medications to use, but you don’t even necessarily need to get to that point. We have a lot of medications that we can use for migraine prophylaxis, such as the beta-blockers and antihypertensives. Candesartan was a new one to me, an angiotensin receptor blocker that apparently has good evidence for migraine prophylaxis and Dr. Weber swears by it. We talked about some of the antiseizure medications, such as topiramate, which is probably the one with the most comfort in primary care. Some older folks may be using valproic acid or the tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline and nortriptyline) because people with migraine often will have comorbid anxiety or trouble sleeping, so I find that can sometimes be an effective medication or if they have comorbid neuropathic pain.

Another one that was new to me was venlafaxine as migraine prophylaxis. It’s not something I’d heard about before this episode. Certainly, for someone with chronic pain or a mood disorder that’s comorbid with migraines, it may be worth a shot. So there are options that we can exhaust first, and we may actually be doing our specialist friends a favor by trying one or two of these in advance, because then by the time the patient gets to the neurologist, it makes the prior authorization process much easier for the newer, fancier-pants medications that we’re all very excited about.

Dr. Watto: Paul, we’ve teased this fantastic podcast episode filled with so much more great stuff, so people should check out Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber.

Until next time, this has been another episode of The Curbsiders, bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole.

The Curbsiders is an internal medicine podcast, in which three board-certified internists interview experts on clinically important topics. In a collaboration with Medscape, the Curbsiders share clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge from selected podcasts.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Watto, here with my very good friend, Dr. Paul Williams. It’s time to talk about headaches. We did a great recent podcast on migraines, Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber. One of the quotes from that episode that stayed with me was when he said, “I tell my patients to think about migraine as an irritable old miser set in their ways, and your brain is set in its ways. It doesn’t like changes in routine. It doesn’t like lack of sleep, it doesn’t like being hungry, it doesn’t like being thirsty, and it doesn’t like changes in the weather.” That’s a reminder of the good, old-fashioned primary care tips for taking care of headache.

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right. Conservative supportive management goes by the wayside because we focus on the medications. But I thought that was a really nice way to start the episode.

Dr. Watto: I asked him about cervicogenic headaches, which I guess you have to diagnose by giving a cervical steroid injection and see if the patient feels better, but he said he doesn’t do this. This is expert opinion territory. He asks his patients with chronic headache about cervical neck pain, because if they have it, he goes after it with physical therapy, which can help with the headaches. I thought that was a great pearl that I hadn’t heard before.

Give the audience a pearl from this great episode.

Dr. Williams: We talked about foundational treatments. We reviewed some of the abortive therapies and over-the-counter products. Some patients do quite well with acetaminophen or NSAIDs. We also talked about triptans, which are the standard medicines that we all know about. You can use those in combination, by the way. Patients can take their triptan with the NSAID that works best for them. They don’t have to be used one at a time, trying one and then trying the other one if the first one doesn’t help. Dr. Weber gave us practical guides in terms of which triptans he favors. He mentioned rizatriptan and naratriptan, which is one that I had not used with any frequency. I’ve seen rizatriptan a fair amount and that one seems to be covered by most insurances. He favors those two triptans.

He also reminded us that even though there is theoretical concern for serotonin toxicity because these are serotonergic and you’ll see these scary pop-ups in your electronic health record, that concern is almost purely theoretical. It hasn’t been borne out. They are really safe medications to use. But do use caution if you have a patient with known cardiovascular disease or cerebrovascular disease. We spent a fair amount of time talking about chest pressure as a common side effect. We also talked about some of the newer agents.

Dr. Watto: I wanted to add something about the triptans. Part of the reason he favors rizatriptan and naratriptan is that they are newer. He thinks they tend to have fewer side effects. But he did mention sumatriptan because it comes in the most different formulations. If patients have severe nausea, there is a subcutaneous version of sumatriptan and also an intranasal version.

The new kids on the block are the CGRP receptor antagonists, and they are available for preventive and abortive therapy. The abortive therapies are probably what people will be seeing most often in primary care – ubrogepant and rimegepant. Patients can take ubrogepant for abortive therapy and then repeat it if necessary. That’s similar to what patients are used to with the triptans. Rimegepant is taken once daily for abortive therapy or every other day as a preventive agent. Those are two of the agents that you might see patients taking. I’ve certainly started to see them.

There are also a whole bunch of monoclonal antibodies that affect the CGRP pathway. Those are given either once a month by subcutaneous injection or once every 3 months, and one is an infusion. They are pretty safe, and the big appeal is that they can be used in patients with cardiovascular disease. He also said that he has some patients who take them because triptans can cause the medication overuse side effect, but the CGRP receptor antagonists don’t. It’s an option for some patients to take the CGRP receptor antagonists on certain days for abortive therapy and then they can take the triptans the rest of the month.

Dr. Weber said that in his practice, these new drugs have really been great, which I can imagine, if you’re a specialist, patients have exhausted many of the typical therapies we offer in primary care.

Paul, bring us home here. What else should we tell the audience about? In primary care, what can we offer these patients?

Dr. Williams: A lot of the stuff we can offer works, by the way. It’s exciting to have fancy new medications to use, but you don’t even necessarily need to get to that point. We have a lot of medications that we can use for migraine prophylaxis, such as the beta-blockers and antihypertensives. Candesartan was a new one to me, an angiotensin receptor blocker that apparently has good evidence for migraine prophylaxis and Dr. Weber swears by it. We talked about some of the antiseizure medications, such as topiramate, which is probably the one with the most comfort in primary care. Some older folks may be using valproic acid or the tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline and nortriptyline) because people with migraine often will have comorbid anxiety or trouble sleeping, so I find that can sometimes be an effective medication or if they have comorbid neuropathic pain.

Another one that was new to me was venlafaxine as migraine prophylaxis. It’s not something I’d heard about before this episode. Certainly, for someone with chronic pain or a mood disorder that’s comorbid with migraines, it may be worth a shot. So there are options that we can exhaust first, and we may actually be doing our specialist friends a favor by trying one or two of these in advance, because then by the time the patient gets to the neurologist, it makes the prior authorization process much easier for the newer, fancier-pants medications that we’re all very excited about.

Dr. Watto: Paul, we’ve teased this fantastic podcast episode filled with so much more great stuff, so people should check out Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber.

Until next time, this has been another episode of The Curbsiders, bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole.

The Curbsiders is an internal medicine podcast, in which three board-certified internists interview experts on clinically important topics. In a collaboration with Medscape, the Curbsiders share clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge from selected podcasts.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Watto, here with my very good friend, Dr. Paul Williams. It’s time to talk about headaches. We did a great recent podcast on migraines, Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber. One of the quotes from that episode that stayed with me was when he said, “I tell my patients to think about migraine as an irritable old miser set in their ways, and your brain is set in its ways. It doesn’t like changes in routine. It doesn’t like lack of sleep, it doesn’t like being hungry, it doesn’t like being thirsty, and it doesn’t like changes in the weather.” That’s a reminder of the good, old-fashioned primary care tips for taking care of headache.

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right. Conservative supportive management goes by the wayside because we focus on the medications. But I thought that was a really nice way to start the episode.

Dr. Watto: I asked him about cervicogenic headaches, which I guess you have to diagnose by giving a cervical steroid injection and see if the patient feels better, but he said he doesn’t do this. This is expert opinion territory. He asks his patients with chronic headache about cervical neck pain, because if they have it, he goes after it with physical therapy, which can help with the headaches. I thought that was a great pearl that I hadn’t heard before.

Give the audience a pearl from this great episode.

Dr. Williams: We talked about foundational treatments. We reviewed some of the abortive therapies and over-the-counter products. Some patients do quite well with acetaminophen or NSAIDs. We also talked about triptans, which are the standard medicines that we all know about. You can use those in combination, by the way. Patients can take their triptan with the NSAID that works best for them. They don’t have to be used one at a time, trying one and then trying the other one if the first one doesn’t help. Dr. Weber gave us practical guides in terms of which triptans he favors. He mentioned rizatriptan and naratriptan, which is one that I had not used with any frequency. I’ve seen rizatriptan a fair amount and that one seems to be covered by most insurances. He favors those two triptans.

He also reminded us that even though there is theoretical concern for serotonin toxicity because these are serotonergic and you’ll see these scary pop-ups in your electronic health record, that concern is almost purely theoretical. It hasn’t been borne out. They are really safe medications to use. But do use caution if you have a patient with known cardiovascular disease or cerebrovascular disease. We spent a fair amount of time talking about chest pressure as a common side effect. We also talked about some of the newer agents.

Dr. Watto: I wanted to add something about the triptans. Part of the reason he favors rizatriptan and naratriptan is that they are newer. He thinks they tend to have fewer side effects. But he did mention sumatriptan because it comes in the most different formulations. If patients have severe nausea, there is a subcutaneous version of sumatriptan and also an intranasal version.

The new kids on the block are the CGRP receptor antagonists, and they are available for preventive and abortive therapy. The abortive therapies are probably what people will be seeing most often in primary care – ubrogepant and rimegepant. Patients can take ubrogepant for abortive therapy and then repeat it if necessary. That’s similar to what patients are used to with the triptans. Rimegepant is taken once daily for abortive therapy or every other day as a preventive agent. Those are two of the agents that you might see patients taking. I’ve certainly started to see them.

There are also a whole bunch of monoclonal antibodies that affect the CGRP pathway. Those are given either once a month by subcutaneous injection or once every 3 months, and one is an infusion. They are pretty safe, and the big appeal is that they can be used in patients with cardiovascular disease. He also said that he has some patients who take them because triptans can cause the medication overuse side effect, but the CGRP receptor antagonists don’t. It’s an option for some patients to take the CGRP receptor antagonists on certain days for abortive therapy and then they can take the triptans the rest of the month.

Dr. Weber said that in his practice, these new drugs have really been great, which I can imagine, if you’re a specialist, patients have exhausted many of the typical therapies we offer in primary care.

Paul, bring us home here. What else should we tell the audience about? In primary care, what can we offer these patients?

Dr. Williams: A lot of the stuff we can offer works, by the way. It’s exciting to have fancy new medications to use, but you don’t even necessarily need to get to that point. We have a lot of medications that we can use for migraine prophylaxis, such as the beta-blockers and antihypertensives. Candesartan was a new one to me, an angiotensin receptor blocker that apparently has good evidence for migraine prophylaxis and Dr. Weber swears by it. We talked about some of the antiseizure medications, such as topiramate, which is probably the one with the most comfort in primary care. Some older folks may be using valproic acid or the tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline and nortriptyline) because people with migraine often will have comorbid anxiety or trouble sleeping, so I find that can sometimes be an effective medication or if they have comorbid neuropathic pain.

Another one that was new to me was venlafaxine as migraine prophylaxis. It’s not something I’d heard about before this episode. Certainly, for someone with chronic pain or a mood disorder that’s comorbid with migraines, it may be worth a shot. So there are options that we can exhaust first, and we may actually be doing our specialist friends a favor by trying one or two of these in advance, because then by the time the patient gets to the neurologist, it makes the prior authorization process much easier for the newer, fancier-pants medications that we’re all very excited about.

Dr. Watto: Paul, we’ve teased this fantastic podcast episode filled with so much more great stuff, so people should check out Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber.

Until next time, this has been another episode of The Curbsiders, bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole.

The Curbsiders is an internal medicine podcast, in which three board-certified internists interview experts on clinically important topics. In a collaboration with Medscape, the Curbsiders share clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge from selected podcasts.

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

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

MONTREAL – Patients who discontinue levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism may gravitate towards becoming mildly hypothyroid again, but they importantly show no differences in terms of symptoms and quality of life – and sometimes show even improvement – compared with those who continue treatment, new research shows.

“Our results show feasibility of patient enrollment and safety of discontinuing levothyroxine in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” said first author Spyridoula Maraka, MD, when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

Recommendations against levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism

Subclinical hypothyroidism is commonly over-diagnosed, and treatment with thyroid hormone replacement, levothyroxine, has been shown to provide little, if any, benefit in terms of quality of life or relief of thyroid-related symptoms for these patients.

The treatment is meanwhile associated with burdens including cost and lifestyle adjustments, and one guideline panel recently issued a strong recommendation against routine levothyroxine use in most adults with subclinical hypothyroidism.

Nevertheless, levothyroxine treatment has soared in popularity and become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.

With research lacking on one key solution of discontinuation of the therapy, Dr. Maraka, who is part of the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. In total, 50 patients treated for subclinical hypothyroidism were randomized 1:1 to continue receiving levothyroxine (25-75 mcg daily) or to discontinue treatment and receive a placebo instead, with a planned 6-month follow-up.

In the current interim analysis, Dr. Maraka reported results for the first 40 patients, including 20 randomized to levothyroxine and 20 to discontinuation.

There were no significant differences between the discontinuation and levothyroxine groups at baseline, which were of a similar age (66.2 vs. 70.8 years) and gender (75% women vs. 85% men).

The groups had similar baseline thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels (3.0 vs. 2.6 mIU/L), free T4 (both 0.9 ng/dL), thyroid peroxidase antibody positivity (17% vs. 11%), and similar clinical symptoms. All patients had at least one elevated TSH reading prior to starting levothyroxine.

With a follow-up of 6-8 weeks, 36.8% of patients in the discontinuation group had subclinical hypothyroidism, compared with 10% of patients who remained on levothyroxine (P = .0648), TSH levels were 5.5 versus 2.7 mIU/L (P = .001) and free T4 levels were 0.8 versus 0.9 ng/dL (P = .011).
 

No differences in symptoms, quality of life between groups

Importantly, there were no significant differences between the discontinuation versus levothyroxine groups in terms of symptoms, and even some improvements with discontinuation, including Thyroid-Specific Quality of Life Patient-Reported Outcome (ThyPRO)-Hypothyroid Symptoms score (4.6 reduction vs. 2.2 increase), tiredness (2.6 reduction vs. 1.1 increase), and EuroQoL 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) quality of life score, for which there were no differences between groups.

There were no reports of overt hypothyroidism; hyperthyroidism; cardiovascular events including atrial fibrillation, stroke, or heart failure; osteoporotic fractures; or deaths.

One patient in the discontinuation group had a TSH level of 11 mIU/L at 6-8 weeks and switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily. Another patient in the discontinuation group switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily at 10 weeks due to fatigue; however, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer 1 month later.

The finding that only about a third of patients who discontinued levothyroxine developed subclinical hypothyroidism was lower than expected, Dr. Maraka noted.

“This was ... unexpected ... for us,” she said. “We were expecting a larger number of patients to develop hypothyroidism, but to our surprise, that was not the case.”

“But what is more important is that there was no difference in the quality of life measures,” she added. “If anything, the placebo group was a little better, though the [differences] were not statistically significant.”

Dr. Maraka also noted that in further research and a final 6-month analysis, the authors will look at factors associated with developing subclinical hypothyroidism after treatment discontinuation, among other issues.
 

Discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable

The results are encouraging, as they provide assurance that discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable.

“This research will pave the way for initiatives to promote levothyroxine deprescription and implementation of evidence-based care for patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” she said.

In further comments, Dr. Hennessey noted that the dilemma of having patients on levothyroxine who may not be benefitting from treatment is “significant,” with patients sometimes reluctant to discontinue treatment due to concerns of developing hypothyroidism-associated symptoms such as brain fog and weight gain.

He noted, however, that “many with mildly elevated TSH actually go on to normalize with time, so they are not really hypothyroid, [and] if we remove thyroxine from people with normal thyroid function, they will remain normal.”

Dr. Maraka has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hennessey has reported consulting for pharmaceutical companies to design clinical studies for thyroid medications.

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

MONTREAL – Patients who discontinue levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism may gravitate towards becoming mildly hypothyroid again, but they importantly show no differences in terms of symptoms and quality of life – and sometimes show even improvement – compared with those who continue treatment, new research shows.

“Our results show feasibility of patient enrollment and safety of discontinuing levothyroxine in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” said first author Spyridoula Maraka, MD, when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

Recommendations against levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism

Subclinical hypothyroidism is commonly over-diagnosed, and treatment with thyroid hormone replacement, levothyroxine, has been shown to provide little, if any, benefit in terms of quality of life or relief of thyroid-related symptoms for these patients.

The treatment is meanwhile associated with burdens including cost and lifestyle adjustments, and one guideline panel recently issued a strong recommendation against routine levothyroxine use in most adults with subclinical hypothyroidism.

Nevertheless, levothyroxine treatment has soared in popularity and become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.

With research lacking on one key solution of discontinuation of the therapy, Dr. Maraka, who is part of the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. In total, 50 patients treated for subclinical hypothyroidism were randomized 1:1 to continue receiving levothyroxine (25-75 mcg daily) or to discontinue treatment and receive a placebo instead, with a planned 6-month follow-up.

In the current interim analysis, Dr. Maraka reported results for the first 40 patients, including 20 randomized to levothyroxine and 20 to discontinuation.

There were no significant differences between the discontinuation and levothyroxine groups at baseline, which were of a similar age (66.2 vs. 70.8 years) and gender (75% women vs. 85% men).

The groups had similar baseline thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels (3.0 vs. 2.6 mIU/L), free T4 (both 0.9 ng/dL), thyroid peroxidase antibody positivity (17% vs. 11%), and similar clinical symptoms. All patients had at least one elevated TSH reading prior to starting levothyroxine.

With a follow-up of 6-8 weeks, 36.8% of patients in the discontinuation group had subclinical hypothyroidism, compared with 10% of patients who remained on levothyroxine (P = .0648), TSH levels were 5.5 versus 2.7 mIU/L (P = .001) and free T4 levels were 0.8 versus 0.9 ng/dL (P = .011).
 

No differences in symptoms, quality of life between groups

Importantly, there were no significant differences between the discontinuation versus levothyroxine groups in terms of symptoms, and even some improvements with discontinuation, including Thyroid-Specific Quality of Life Patient-Reported Outcome (ThyPRO)-Hypothyroid Symptoms score (4.6 reduction vs. 2.2 increase), tiredness (2.6 reduction vs. 1.1 increase), and EuroQoL 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) quality of life score, for which there were no differences between groups.

There were no reports of overt hypothyroidism; hyperthyroidism; cardiovascular events including atrial fibrillation, stroke, or heart failure; osteoporotic fractures; or deaths.

One patient in the discontinuation group had a TSH level of 11 mIU/L at 6-8 weeks and switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily. Another patient in the discontinuation group switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily at 10 weeks due to fatigue; however, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer 1 month later.

The finding that only about a third of patients who discontinued levothyroxine developed subclinical hypothyroidism was lower than expected, Dr. Maraka noted.

“This was ... unexpected ... for us,” she said. “We were expecting a larger number of patients to develop hypothyroidism, but to our surprise, that was not the case.”

“But what is more important is that there was no difference in the quality of life measures,” she added. “If anything, the placebo group was a little better, though the [differences] were not statistically significant.”

Dr. Maraka also noted that in further research and a final 6-month analysis, the authors will look at factors associated with developing subclinical hypothyroidism after treatment discontinuation, among other issues.
 

Discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable

The results are encouraging, as they provide assurance that discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable.

“This research will pave the way for initiatives to promote levothyroxine deprescription and implementation of evidence-based care for patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” she said.

In further comments, Dr. Hennessey noted that the dilemma of having patients on levothyroxine who may not be benefitting from treatment is “significant,” with patients sometimes reluctant to discontinue treatment due to concerns of developing hypothyroidism-associated symptoms such as brain fog and weight gain.

He noted, however, that “many with mildly elevated TSH actually go on to normalize with time, so they are not really hypothyroid, [and] if we remove thyroxine from people with normal thyroid function, they will remain normal.”

Dr. Maraka has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hennessey has reported consulting for pharmaceutical companies to design clinical studies for thyroid medications.

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

MONTREAL – Patients who discontinue levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism may gravitate towards becoming mildly hypothyroid again, but they importantly show no differences in terms of symptoms and quality of life – and sometimes show even improvement – compared with those who continue treatment, new research shows.

“Our results show feasibility of patient enrollment and safety of discontinuing levothyroxine in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” said first author Spyridoula Maraka, MD, when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

Recommendations against levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism

Subclinical hypothyroidism is commonly over-diagnosed, and treatment with thyroid hormone replacement, levothyroxine, has been shown to provide little, if any, benefit in terms of quality of life or relief of thyroid-related symptoms for these patients.

The treatment is meanwhile associated with burdens including cost and lifestyle adjustments, and one guideline panel recently issued a strong recommendation against routine levothyroxine use in most adults with subclinical hypothyroidism.

Nevertheless, levothyroxine treatment has soared in popularity and become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.

With research lacking on one key solution of discontinuation of the therapy, Dr. Maraka, who is part of the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. In total, 50 patients treated for subclinical hypothyroidism were randomized 1:1 to continue receiving levothyroxine (25-75 mcg daily) or to discontinue treatment and receive a placebo instead, with a planned 6-month follow-up.

In the current interim analysis, Dr. Maraka reported results for the first 40 patients, including 20 randomized to levothyroxine and 20 to discontinuation.

There were no significant differences between the discontinuation and levothyroxine groups at baseline, which were of a similar age (66.2 vs. 70.8 years) and gender (75% women vs. 85% men).

The groups had similar baseline thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels (3.0 vs. 2.6 mIU/L), free T4 (both 0.9 ng/dL), thyroid peroxidase antibody positivity (17% vs. 11%), and similar clinical symptoms. All patients had at least one elevated TSH reading prior to starting levothyroxine.

With a follow-up of 6-8 weeks, 36.8% of patients in the discontinuation group had subclinical hypothyroidism, compared with 10% of patients who remained on levothyroxine (P = .0648), TSH levels were 5.5 versus 2.7 mIU/L (P = .001) and free T4 levels were 0.8 versus 0.9 ng/dL (P = .011).
 

No differences in symptoms, quality of life between groups

Importantly, there were no significant differences between the discontinuation versus levothyroxine groups in terms of symptoms, and even some improvements with discontinuation, including Thyroid-Specific Quality of Life Patient-Reported Outcome (ThyPRO)-Hypothyroid Symptoms score (4.6 reduction vs. 2.2 increase), tiredness (2.6 reduction vs. 1.1 increase), and EuroQoL 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) quality of life score, for which there were no differences between groups.

There were no reports of overt hypothyroidism; hyperthyroidism; cardiovascular events including atrial fibrillation, stroke, or heart failure; osteoporotic fractures; or deaths.

One patient in the discontinuation group had a TSH level of 11 mIU/L at 6-8 weeks and switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily. Another patient in the discontinuation group switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily at 10 weeks due to fatigue; however, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer 1 month later.

The finding that only about a third of patients who discontinued levothyroxine developed subclinical hypothyroidism was lower than expected, Dr. Maraka noted.

“This was ... unexpected ... for us,” she said. “We were expecting a larger number of patients to develop hypothyroidism, but to our surprise, that was not the case.”

“But what is more important is that there was no difference in the quality of life measures,” she added. “If anything, the placebo group was a little better, though the [differences] were not statistically significant.”

Dr. Maraka also noted that in further research and a final 6-month analysis, the authors will look at factors associated with developing subclinical hypothyroidism after treatment discontinuation, among other issues.
 

Discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable

The results are encouraging, as they provide assurance that discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable.

“This research will pave the way for initiatives to promote levothyroxine deprescription and implementation of evidence-based care for patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” she said.

In further comments, Dr. Hennessey noted that the dilemma of having patients on levothyroxine who may not be benefitting from treatment is “significant,” with patients sometimes reluctant to discontinue treatment due to concerns of developing hypothyroidism-associated symptoms such as brain fog and weight gain.

He noted, however, that “many with mildly elevated TSH actually go on to normalize with time, so they are not really hypothyroid, [and] if we remove thyroxine from people with normal thyroid function, they will remain normal.”

Dr. Maraka has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hennessey has reported consulting for pharmaceutical companies to design clinical studies for thyroid medications.

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