Advocacy groups for patients with neurologic disorders have become a common feature in the landscape of drug and device development and federal research funding allocation.

On Capitol Hill, advocates have racked up some impressive legislative wins that aim to set a federal agenda for developing new medications.

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), advocacy groups played a significant role in several recent high-profile and controversial approvals for drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Such gains suggest these groups are growing in power. But with these wins come questions about whether large advocacy organizations — some of which receive significant industry funding — wield too much influence.

“You need to think very carefully about how you open these processes up to greater patient involvement,” Matthew S. McCoy, PhD, assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. It’s important not to “end up with a situation where it’s the best-connected, the most well-resourced, the most-savvy patient organizations that are able to exercise outsize influence.”

Just because a group has deep pockets does not mean that its priorities align with the disease burden. And not every patient population is represented by a professionalized patient advocacy organization, Dr. McCoy noted. “There is the potential for the rich to get richer.”
 

A Seat at the Table

Long ago, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began giving patients a seat at the table, in part because of the path blazed by AIDS activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Dr. McCoy.

Patient advocacy is often visible during FDA advisory committee meetings. The agency usually allows an hour, sometimes more, for members of the public to express support or concerns about the product being reviewed. Patients and caregivers — often aided by advocacy organizations — also submit hundreds, sometimes thousands, of letters before a product review.

The Alzheimer’s Association spent years advocating for approval of the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai). In 2020, the organization urged patients and caregivers to submit written and oral testimony to the FDA advisory panel that was reviewing the drug. Despite patients’ pleas, the panel ultimately declined to support the drug’s approval, citing safety concerns and limited evidence of efficacy.

As controversy swirled around the medication — which had the potential for life-threatening brain swelling — advocates continued to apply pressure. Going against the expert panel’s recommendation, in June 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval prompting three of the panelists to resign in protest.

Aducanumab’s initial price — $56,000 a year — was seen as a major threat to the viability of Medicare. Still, the Alzheimer’s Association stood behind the decision to approve the drug. But by early 2024, Biogen/Eisai said they would stop selling aducanumab, citing other priorities.

Once again patient advocates showed up in March 2022 when the FDA advisers were reviewing Amylyx Pharmaceuticals’ ALS drug Relyvrio (sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol). Trials had showed limited efficacy, but patients testified they would accept greater risk for a chance to be treated with the drug. The committee ultimately voted against approval; 6 months later, the FDA approved Relyvrio anyway.

In April 2024, Amylyx removed Relyvrio from the market following phase 3 trial results that showed no difference between the treatment and placebo.

The drug manufacturer Sarepta Therapeutics, which develops treatments for genetic conditions such as DMD, has a history of working with — and funding — patient advocacy groups. The company encourages nonprofits to apply for grants or sponsorship on its website. At a 2016 advisory committee, when Sarepta was seeking approval of its first DMD therapy eteplirsen (Exondys 51), 52 speakers, most from patient advocacy groups, pleaded for the drug’s approval. When the panel voted no, Sarepta mobilized families to pressure the agency. Exondys was eventually approved.

In June, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, unilaterally gave final expanded approval to Sarepta Therapeutics’ gene therapy Elevidys for DMD. Dr. Marks overrode his own FDA reviewers, who said the product lacked substantial evidence of efficacy. He acknowledged the drug had not met its primary endpoint but said he found secondary and exploratory endpoints “compelling” and cited an unmet medical need.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, the director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and a former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, questioned the approval stating that it undermined both public trust and manufacturers’ incentives to do the hard work of proving effectiveness.
 

Patient Voices the ‘Secret Sauce’

Drugmakers aren’t alone in seeing the value of having patients speak directly to government entities. When the Michael J. Fox Foundation wanted to gather cosponsors for the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in July, it recruited and trained patients and caregivers for congressional meetings, said Ted Thompson, senior vice president of public policy at the foundation.

Having those individuals “making the personal case for how this disease affects their families ... was really the secret sauce,” in garnering a large number of cosponsors and getting legislation signed into law within 2 years of its introduction, Mr. Thompson told this news organization.

ALS advocacy groups launched a similar campaign to secure passage of the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act in 2021.

Both pieces of legislation seek to set a federal agenda for developing new therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, in part by directing the FDA and NIH to fund research, engage patients more directly, and form public-private partnerships and councils to spur innovation.

But some said patient advocates are still coming far too late to the party.

“By the time you hear from patient groups at the meetings at the FDA, often the best opportunities for their input are long past,” Leah Zoe Gibson Rand, DPhil, a research scientist with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told this news organization. There should be more focus on the patient perspective earlier in drug development and trial design.

“There are some things that the patient voice could uniquely tell the agency,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients can give insight on what it means to live with a disease, what symptoms are particularly burdensome, and which endpoints matter.

But, she said, “listening to the patient voice cannot mean that FDA just steps aside and lets anything on the market that patients are willing to try.” Individuals “who lack good treatment options have a very good reason to want to try things that haven’t yet been proven.”

If the FDA allows drugs on the market just because patients are willing to try, “5 or 10 years down the road, it’s not at all clear that we would end up with drugs that are better, or drugs that work, or drugs that we know anything more about,” said Dr. Lynch.
 

Does Taking Industry Money Equal Conflicts of Interest?

Many patient advocacy organizations receive funding from drug companies, medical device makers, or other industry sources, but they aren’t always transparent about how much or from which companies, according to studies.

The Alzheimer’s Association continued to push for the approval of aducanumab, even as the group received millions of dollars from the drugmakers. The association was accused of failing to disclose the potential conflict. It still lobbied for approval, even after the FDA advisers in 2020 voted against the drug.

It is not uncommon for individuals who speak in favor of a product’s approval to receive money for transportation and/or lodging from the drug’s manufacturer. In 2018, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine that, between 2009 and 2017, a quarter of the speakers at the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest (COIs), mostly from industry, and that they were not disclosed in approximately 20% of the instances.

In a 2017 study of 104 large patient advocacy organizations published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported that 83% had received funds from industry. At least 39% had a current or former industry executive on the governing board, and 12% had a current or former industry executive in a board leadership position. Of the 104, 38 were focused on cancer and 13 on neurologic conditions. Of these, only 12% had published policies for managing institutional COIs.

Dr. McCoy emphasized the industry’s reliance on partnering with patient groups, particularly during FDA advisory committee meetings. “The sponsors wouldn’t be paying for patients to show up and give these testimonies if they didn’t think it made a difference. The audience isn’t just panel members; it’s also agency officials and maybe elected officials as well.”

“The Fox Foundation, with a $300 million-plus budget, gets about $5-$6 million a year from industry,” said Mr. Thompson. The money is earmarked for the organization’s Parkinson’s Disease Education Consortium; none goes toward advocacy. And, “the foundation has never specifically endorsed a product or device.”

When organizations that receive industry funding back a particular product, “it does appear to be [a conflict], and whether it is an actual one or not, appearances sometimes are all that matter,” said Mr. Thompson.

Dr. Lynch said accepting industry money “is a really significant conflict.” While advocates might need that money to fund advocacy efforts or make grants to advance research priorities, the acceptance might hinder willingness to demand evidence or to complain about a product’s price tag. “You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, right?”

Both Dr. McCoy and Dr. Lynch said patient groups — and individual patients — should at a minimum disclose industry funding, especially when speaking at an advisory committee.

Federal agencies and members of Congress actively seek patient input when considering legislation and funding priorities. But the individuals testifying at an advisory committee aren’t likely to represent all patients, and there’s a danger that they are just the loudest voices, said Dr. McCoy.

“We need to think more carefully about how we actually understand the preferences of a big, diverse patient population,” he said.

Dr. Lynch agreed.

Within the ALS community, “a lot of people who take different perspectives than some of those that are the leading voices get shouted down, and their voices get drowned out, and they get attacked on social media,” she said.

The group may be at the table, “but they’re just one voice at the table,” she said.

Dr. McCoy reported that his wife works for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a patient advocacy organization. Dr. Rand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lynch received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Greenwall Foundation for work related to the FDA and patient advocacy.

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

Advocacy groups for patients with neurologic disorders have become a common feature in the landscape of drug and device development and federal research funding allocation.

On Capitol Hill, advocates have racked up some impressive legislative wins that aim to set a federal agenda for developing new medications.

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), advocacy groups played a significant role in several recent high-profile and controversial approvals for drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Such gains suggest these groups are growing in power. But with these wins come questions about whether large advocacy organizations — some of which receive significant industry funding — wield too much influence.

“You need to think very carefully about how you open these processes up to greater patient involvement,” Matthew S. McCoy, PhD, assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. It’s important not to “end up with a situation where it’s the best-connected, the most well-resourced, the most-savvy patient organizations that are able to exercise outsize influence.”

Just because a group has deep pockets does not mean that its priorities align with the disease burden. And not every patient population is represented by a professionalized patient advocacy organization, Dr. McCoy noted. “There is the potential for the rich to get richer.”
 

A Seat at the Table

Long ago, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began giving patients a seat at the table, in part because of the path blazed by AIDS activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Dr. McCoy.

Patient advocacy is often visible during FDA advisory committee meetings. The agency usually allows an hour, sometimes more, for members of the public to express support or concerns about the product being reviewed. Patients and caregivers — often aided by advocacy organizations — also submit hundreds, sometimes thousands, of letters before a product review.

The Alzheimer’s Association spent years advocating for approval of the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai). In 2020, the organization urged patients and caregivers to submit written and oral testimony to the FDA advisory panel that was reviewing the drug. Despite patients’ pleas, the panel ultimately declined to support the drug’s approval, citing safety concerns and limited evidence of efficacy.

As controversy swirled around the medication — which had the potential for life-threatening brain swelling — advocates continued to apply pressure. Going against the expert panel’s recommendation, in June 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval prompting three of the panelists to resign in protest.

Aducanumab’s initial price — $56,000 a year — was seen as a major threat to the viability of Medicare. Still, the Alzheimer’s Association stood behind the decision to approve the drug. But by early 2024, Biogen/Eisai said they would stop selling aducanumab, citing other priorities.

Once again patient advocates showed up in March 2022 when the FDA advisers were reviewing Amylyx Pharmaceuticals’ ALS drug Relyvrio (sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol). Trials had showed limited efficacy, but patients testified they would accept greater risk for a chance to be treated with the drug. The committee ultimately voted against approval; 6 months later, the FDA approved Relyvrio anyway.

In April 2024, Amylyx removed Relyvrio from the market following phase 3 trial results that showed no difference between the treatment and placebo.

The drug manufacturer Sarepta Therapeutics, which develops treatments for genetic conditions such as DMD, has a history of working with — and funding — patient advocacy groups. The company encourages nonprofits to apply for grants or sponsorship on its website. At a 2016 advisory committee, when Sarepta was seeking approval of its first DMD therapy eteplirsen (Exondys 51), 52 speakers, most from patient advocacy groups, pleaded for the drug’s approval. When the panel voted no, Sarepta mobilized families to pressure the agency. Exondys was eventually approved.

In June, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, unilaterally gave final expanded approval to Sarepta Therapeutics’ gene therapy Elevidys for DMD. Dr. Marks overrode his own FDA reviewers, who said the product lacked substantial evidence of efficacy. He acknowledged the drug had not met its primary endpoint but said he found secondary and exploratory endpoints “compelling” and cited an unmet medical need.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, the director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and a former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, questioned the approval stating that it undermined both public trust and manufacturers’ incentives to do the hard work of proving effectiveness.
 

Patient Voices the ‘Secret Sauce’

Drugmakers aren’t alone in seeing the value of having patients speak directly to government entities. When the Michael J. Fox Foundation wanted to gather cosponsors for the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in July, it recruited and trained patients and caregivers for congressional meetings, said Ted Thompson, senior vice president of public policy at the foundation.

Having those individuals “making the personal case for how this disease affects their families ... was really the secret sauce,” in garnering a large number of cosponsors and getting legislation signed into law within 2 years of its introduction, Mr. Thompson told this news organization.

ALS advocacy groups launched a similar campaign to secure passage of the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act in 2021.

Both pieces of legislation seek to set a federal agenda for developing new therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, in part by directing the FDA and NIH to fund research, engage patients more directly, and form public-private partnerships and councils to spur innovation.

But some said patient advocates are still coming far too late to the party.

“By the time you hear from patient groups at the meetings at the FDA, often the best opportunities for their input are long past,” Leah Zoe Gibson Rand, DPhil, a research scientist with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told this news organization. There should be more focus on the patient perspective earlier in drug development and trial design.

“There are some things that the patient voice could uniquely tell the agency,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients can give insight on what it means to live with a disease, what symptoms are particularly burdensome, and which endpoints matter.

But, she said, “listening to the patient voice cannot mean that FDA just steps aside and lets anything on the market that patients are willing to try.” Individuals “who lack good treatment options have a very good reason to want to try things that haven’t yet been proven.”

If the FDA allows drugs on the market just because patients are willing to try, “5 or 10 years down the road, it’s not at all clear that we would end up with drugs that are better, or drugs that work, or drugs that we know anything more about,” said Dr. Lynch.
 

Does Taking Industry Money Equal Conflicts of Interest?

Many patient advocacy organizations receive funding from drug companies, medical device makers, or other industry sources, but they aren’t always transparent about how much or from which companies, according to studies.

The Alzheimer’s Association continued to push for the approval of aducanumab, even as the group received millions of dollars from the drugmakers. The association was accused of failing to disclose the potential conflict. It still lobbied for approval, even after the FDA advisers in 2020 voted against the drug.

It is not uncommon for individuals who speak in favor of a product’s approval to receive money for transportation and/or lodging from the drug’s manufacturer. In 2018, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine that, between 2009 and 2017, a quarter of the speakers at the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest (COIs), mostly from industry, and that they were not disclosed in approximately 20% of the instances.

In a 2017 study of 104 large patient advocacy organizations published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported that 83% had received funds from industry. At least 39% had a current or former industry executive on the governing board, and 12% had a current or former industry executive in a board leadership position. Of the 104, 38 were focused on cancer and 13 on neurologic conditions. Of these, only 12% had published policies for managing institutional COIs.

Dr. McCoy emphasized the industry’s reliance on partnering with patient groups, particularly during FDA advisory committee meetings. “The sponsors wouldn’t be paying for patients to show up and give these testimonies if they didn’t think it made a difference. The audience isn’t just panel members; it’s also agency officials and maybe elected officials as well.”

“The Fox Foundation, with a $300 million-plus budget, gets about $5-$6 million a year from industry,” said Mr. Thompson. The money is earmarked for the organization’s Parkinson’s Disease Education Consortium; none goes toward advocacy. And, “the foundation has never specifically endorsed a product or device.”

When organizations that receive industry funding back a particular product, “it does appear to be [a conflict], and whether it is an actual one or not, appearances sometimes are all that matter,” said Mr. Thompson.

Dr. Lynch said accepting industry money “is a really significant conflict.” While advocates might need that money to fund advocacy efforts or make grants to advance research priorities, the acceptance might hinder willingness to demand evidence or to complain about a product’s price tag. “You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, right?”

Both Dr. McCoy and Dr. Lynch said patient groups — and individual patients — should at a minimum disclose industry funding, especially when speaking at an advisory committee.

Federal agencies and members of Congress actively seek patient input when considering legislation and funding priorities. But the individuals testifying at an advisory committee aren’t likely to represent all patients, and there’s a danger that they are just the loudest voices, said Dr. McCoy.

“We need to think more carefully about how we actually understand the preferences of a big, diverse patient population,” he said.

Dr. Lynch agreed.

Within the ALS community, “a lot of people who take different perspectives than some of those that are the leading voices get shouted down, and their voices get drowned out, and they get attacked on social media,” she said.

The group may be at the table, “but they’re just one voice at the table,” she said.

Dr. McCoy reported that his wife works for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a patient advocacy organization. Dr. Rand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lynch received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Greenwall Foundation for work related to the FDA and patient advocacy.

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

Advocacy groups for patients with neurologic disorders have become a common feature in the landscape of drug and device development and federal research funding allocation.

On Capitol Hill, advocates have racked up some impressive legislative wins that aim to set a federal agenda for developing new medications.

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), advocacy groups played a significant role in several recent high-profile and controversial approvals for drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Such gains suggest these groups are growing in power. But with these wins come questions about whether large advocacy organizations — some of which receive significant industry funding — wield too much influence.

“You need to think very carefully about how you open these processes up to greater patient involvement,” Matthew S. McCoy, PhD, assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. It’s important not to “end up with a situation where it’s the best-connected, the most well-resourced, the most-savvy patient organizations that are able to exercise outsize influence.”

Just because a group has deep pockets does not mean that its priorities align with the disease burden. And not every patient population is represented by a professionalized patient advocacy organization, Dr. McCoy noted. “There is the potential for the rich to get richer.”
 

A Seat at the Table

Long ago, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began giving patients a seat at the table, in part because of the path blazed by AIDS activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Dr. McCoy.

Patient advocacy is often visible during FDA advisory committee meetings. The agency usually allows an hour, sometimes more, for members of the public to express support or concerns about the product being reviewed. Patients and caregivers — often aided by advocacy organizations — also submit hundreds, sometimes thousands, of letters before a product review.

The Alzheimer’s Association spent years advocating for approval of the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai). In 2020, the organization urged patients and caregivers to submit written and oral testimony to the FDA advisory panel that was reviewing the drug. Despite patients’ pleas, the panel ultimately declined to support the drug’s approval, citing safety concerns and limited evidence of efficacy.

As controversy swirled around the medication — which had the potential for life-threatening brain swelling — advocates continued to apply pressure. Going against the expert panel’s recommendation, in June 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval prompting three of the panelists to resign in protest.

Aducanumab’s initial price — $56,000 a year — was seen as a major threat to the viability of Medicare. Still, the Alzheimer’s Association stood behind the decision to approve the drug. But by early 2024, Biogen/Eisai said they would stop selling aducanumab, citing other priorities.

Once again patient advocates showed up in March 2022 when the FDA advisers were reviewing Amylyx Pharmaceuticals’ ALS drug Relyvrio (sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol). Trials had showed limited efficacy, but patients testified they would accept greater risk for a chance to be treated with the drug. The committee ultimately voted against approval; 6 months later, the FDA approved Relyvrio anyway.

In April 2024, Amylyx removed Relyvrio from the market following phase 3 trial results that showed no difference between the treatment and placebo.

The drug manufacturer Sarepta Therapeutics, which develops treatments for genetic conditions such as DMD, has a history of working with — and funding — patient advocacy groups. The company encourages nonprofits to apply for grants or sponsorship on its website. At a 2016 advisory committee, when Sarepta was seeking approval of its first DMD therapy eteplirsen (Exondys 51), 52 speakers, most from patient advocacy groups, pleaded for the drug’s approval. When the panel voted no, Sarepta mobilized families to pressure the agency. Exondys was eventually approved.

In June, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, unilaterally gave final expanded approval to Sarepta Therapeutics’ gene therapy Elevidys for DMD. Dr. Marks overrode his own FDA reviewers, who said the product lacked substantial evidence of efficacy. He acknowledged the drug had not met its primary endpoint but said he found secondary and exploratory endpoints “compelling” and cited an unmet medical need.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, the director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and a former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, questioned the approval stating that it undermined both public trust and manufacturers’ incentives to do the hard work of proving effectiveness.
 

Patient Voices the ‘Secret Sauce’

Drugmakers aren’t alone in seeing the value of having patients speak directly to government entities. When the Michael J. Fox Foundation wanted to gather cosponsors for the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in July, it recruited and trained patients and caregivers for congressional meetings, said Ted Thompson, senior vice president of public policy at the foundation.

Having those individuals “making the personal case for how this disease affects their families ... was really the secret sauce,” in garnering a large number of cosponsors and getting legislation signed into law within 2 years of its introduction, Mr. Thompson told this news organization.

ALS advocacy groups launched a similar campaign to secure passage of the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act in 2021.

Both pieces of legislation seek to set a federal agenda for developing new therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, in part by directing the FDA and NIH to fund research, engage patients more directly, and form public-private partnerships and councils to spur innovation.

But some said patient advocates are still coming far too late to the party.

“By the time you hear from patient groups at the meetings at the FDA, often the best opportunities for their input are long past,” Leah Zoe Gibson Rand, DPhil, a research scientist with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told this news organization. There should be more focus on the patient perspective earlier in drug development and trial design.

“There are some things that the patient voice could uniquely tell the agency,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients can give insight on what it means to live with a disease, what symptoms are particularly burdensome, and which endpoints matter.

But, she said, “listening to the patient voice cannot mean that FDA just steps aside and lets anything on the market that patients are willing to try.” Individuals “who lack good treatment options have a very good reason to want to try things that haven’t yet been proven.”

If the FDA allows drugs on the market just because patients are willing to try, “5 or 10 years down the road, it’s not at all clear that we would end up with drugs that are better, or drugs that work, or drugs that we know anything more about,” said Dr. Lynch.
 

Does Taking Industry Money Equal Conflicts of Interest?

Many patient advocacy organizations receive funding from drug companies, medical device makers, or other industry sources, but they aren’t always transparent about how much or from which companies, according to studies.

The Alzheimer’s Association continued to push for the approval of aducanumab, even as the group received millions of dollars from the drugmakers. The association was accused of failing to disclose the potential conflict. It still lobbied for approval, even after the FDA advisers in 2020 voted against the drug.

It is not uncommon for individuals who speak in favor of a product’s approval to receive money for transportation and/or lodging from the drug’s manufacturer. In 2018, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine that, between 2009 and 2017, a quarter of the speakers at the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest (COIs), mostly from industry, and that they were not disclosed in approximately 20% of the instances.

In a 2017 study of 104 large patient advocacy organizations published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported that 83% had received funds from industry. At least 39% had a current or former industry executive on the governing board, and 12% had a current or former industry executive in a board leadership position. Of the 104, 38 were focused on cancer and 13 on neurologic conditions. Of these, only 12% had published policies for managing institutional COIs.

Dr. McCoy emphasized the industry’s reliance on partnering with patient groups, particularly during FDA advisory committee meetings. “The sponsors wouldn’t be paying for patients to show up and give these testimonies if they didn’t think it made a difference. The audience isn’t just panel members; it’s also agency officials and maybe elected officials as well.”

“The Fox Foundation, with a $300 million-plus budget, gets about $5-$6 million a year from industry,” said Mr. Thompson. The money is earmarked for the organization’s Parkinson’s Disease Education Consortium; none goes toward advocacy. And, “the foundation has never specifically endorsed a product or device.”

When organizations that receive industry funding back a particular product, “it does appear to be [a conflict], and whether it is an actual one or not, appearances sometimes are all that matter,” said Mr. Thompson.

Dr. Lynch said accepting industry money “is a really significant conflict.” While advocates might need that money to fund advocacy efforts or make grants to advance research priorities, the acceptance might hinder willingness to demand evidence or to complain about a product’s price tag. “You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, right?”

Both Dr. McCoy and Dr. Lynch said patient groups — and individual patients — should at a minimum disclose industry funding, especially when speaking at an advisory committee.

Federal agencies and members of Congress actively seek patient input when considering legislation and funding priorities. But the individuals testifying at an advisory committee aren’t likely to represent all patients, and there’s a danger that they are just the loudest voices, said Dr. McCoy.

“We need to think more carefully about how we actually understand the preferences of a big, diverse patient population,” he said.

Dr. Lynch agreed.

Within the ALS community, “a lot of people who take different perspectives than some of those that are the leading voices get shouted down, and their voices get drowned out, and they get attacked on social media,” she said.

The group may be at the table, “but they’re just one voice at the table,” she said.

Dr. McCoy reported that his wife works for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a patient advocacy organization. Dr. Rand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lynch received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Greenwall Foundation for work related to the FDA and patient advocacy.

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

In older individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a higher intake of animal or plant protein is associated with reduced mortality. This finding comes from an analysis of three cohorts from Spain and Sweden, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.

In old age, our protein requirement increases. The recommended protein intake is between 1.0 and 1.2 g per kg of actual body weight per day. For elderly patients with acute and chronic illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition, the requirement may be higher.

“While older adults may need more protein than younger persons, higher protein intake could accelerate disease progression among those with CKD, a prevalent condition in older adults that often has no cure and high morbidity and mortality,” wrote Dr. Adrián Carballo-Casla of the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues.
 

Protein Restriction

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guideline recommends that patients with mild CKD (ie, stages 1 and 2) not consume more than 1.3 g/kg/day of protein. In stages 3-5 (without dialysis) of CKD, protein intake should be limited to 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day. “Such a regimen of lower protein intake has been shown to slow CKD progression rates and improve metabolic derangements in persons with CKD stages 4 and 5 not receiving dialysis,” the researchers wrote. “Insufficient evidence of the overall health impact of limiting protein intake in older persons with mild or moderate CKD, and whether this impact is different in older adults without CKD, is available.”

The authors analyzed data from three cohorts from Spain and Sweden that included 8543 participants aged at least 60 years. A total of 14,399 observations were analyzed, including 4789 participants with CKD stages 1-3 and 9610 without CKD. To capture protein intake over a longer period and minimize variations among individual study participants, the researchers arranged the data so that there was one observation per time interval for each participant. During the 10-year follow-up, 1468 deaths were documented.

“We observed an inverse association between total protein intake and mortality among participants with CKD but a somewhat weaker one than among those without CKD,” the researchers wrote.
 

Slightly Weaker Association

Compared with participants with a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/day, participants with CKD who consumed 1.0 g/kg/day of protein had a 12% reduced risk for death. At an intake of 1.2 g/kg/day, the mortality risk decreased by 21%. It decreased by 27% at a protein intake of 1.4 g/kg/day. In patients without CKD, the corresponding risk reductions were 23%, 37%, and 44%.

While in participants without CKD, mortality decreased by 15% with each increase in protein intake of 0.2 g/kg/day, in patients with CKD, the decrease was only 8%.

The association did not change according to whether the protein was of animal or plant origin. The age of the study participants (ie, whether they were under or over age 75 years) also did not play a role.
 

Benefits Outweigh Drawbacks

The researchers pointed out that the biological effects of protein sources could depend on the total intake, as well as the proportion of plant protein in the diet. “Not only did 68% of total protein come from animal sources in our study, but also the mean protein intake was well above the current recommendations for persons with moderate CKD,” they wrote. It is therefore unclear whether the results could be extrapolated to older patients who follow a plant-based or low-protein diet.

“The stronger associations in participants without CKD suggest that the benefits of proteins may outweigh the downsides in older persons with mild or moderate CKD,” the researchers concluded. 

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

In older individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a higher intake of animal or plant protein is associated with reduced mortality. This finding comes from an analysis of three cohorts from Spain and Sweden, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.

In old age, our protein requirement increases. The recommended protein intake is between 1.0 and 1.2 g per kg of actual body weight per day. For elderly patients with acute and chronic illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition, the requirement may be higher.

“While older adults may need more protein than younger persons, higher protein intake could accelerate disease progression among those with CKD, a prevalent condition in older adults that often has no cure and high morbidity and mortality,” wrote Dr. Adrián Carballo-Casla of the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues.
 

Protein Restriction

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guideline recommends that patients with mild CKD (ie, stages 1 and 2) not consume more than 1.3 g/kg/day of protein. In stages 3-5 (without dialysis) of CKD, protein intake should be limited to 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day. “Such a regimen of lower protein intake has been shown to slow CKD progression rates and improve metabolic derangements in persons with CKD stages 4 and 5 not receiving dialysis,” the researchers wrote. “Insufficient evidence of the overall health impact of limiting protein intake in older persons with mild or moderate CKD, and whether this impact is different in older adults without CKD, is available.”

The authors analyzed data from three cohorts from Spain and Sweden that included 8543 participants aged at least 60 years. A total of 14,399 observations were analyzed, including 4789 participants with CKD stages 1-3 and 9610 without CKD. To capture protein intake over a longer period and minimize variations among individual study participants, the researchers arranged the data so that there was one observation per time interval for each participant. During the 10-year follow-up, 1468 deaths were documented.

“We observed an inverse association between total protein intake and mortality among participants with CKD but a somewhat weaker one than among those without CKD,” the researchers wrote.
 

Slightly Weaker Association

Compared with participants with a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/day, participants with CKD who consumed 1.0 g/kg/day of protein had a 12% reduced risk for death. At an intake of 1.2 g/kg/day, the mortality risk decreased by 21%. It decreased by 27% at a protein intake of 1.4 g/kg/day. In patients without CKD, the corresponding risk reductions were 23%, 37%, and 44%.

While in participants without CKD, mortality decreased by 15% with each increase in protein intake of 0.2 g/kg/day, in patients with CKD, the decrease was only 8%.

The association did not change according to whether the protein was of animal or plant origin. The age of the study participants (ie, whether they were under or over age 75 years) also did not play a role.
 

Benefits Outweigh Drawbacks

The researchers pointed out that the biological effects of protein sources could depend on the total intake, as well as the proportion of plant protein in the diet. “Not only did 68% of total protein come from animal sources in our study, but also the mean protein intake was well above the current recommendations for persons with moderate CKD,” they wrote. It is therefore unclear whether the results could be extrapolated to older patients who follow a plant-based or low-protein diet.

“The stronger associations in participants without CKD suggest that the benefits of proteins may outweigh the downsides in older persons with mild or moderate CKD,” the researchers concluded. 

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

In older individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a higher intake of animal or plant protein is associated with reduced mortality. This finding comes from an analysis of three cohorts from Spain and Sweden, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.

In old age, our protein requirement increases. The recommended protein intake is between 1.0 and 1.2 g per kg of actual body weight per day. For elderly patients with acute and chronic illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition, the requirement may be higher.

“While older adults may need more protein than younger persons, higher protein intake could accelerate disease progression among those with CKD, a prevalent condition in older adults that often has no cure and high morbidity and mortality,” wrote Dr. Adrián Carballo-Casla of the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues.
 

Protein Restriction

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guideline recommends that patients with mild CKD (ie, stages 1 and 2) not consume more than 1.3 g/kg/day of protein. In stages 3-5 (without dialysis) of CKD, protein intake should be limited to 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day. “Such a regimen of lower protein intake has been shown to slow CKD progression rates and improve metabolic derangements in persons with CKD stages 4 and 5 not receiving dialysis,” the researchers wrote. “Insufficient evidence of the overall health impact of limiting protein intake in older persons with mild or moderate CKD, and whether this impact is different in older adults without CKD, is available.”

The authors analyzed data from three cohorts from Spain and Sweden that included 8543 participants aged at least 60 years. A total of 14,399 observations were analyzed, including 4789 participants with CKD stages 1-3 and 9610 without CKD. To capture protein intake over a longer period and minimize variations among individual study participants, the researchers arranged the data so that there was one observation per time interval for each participant. During the 10-year follow-up, 1468 deaths were documented.

“We observed an inverse association between total protein intake and mortality among participants with CKD but a somewhat weaker one than among those without CKD,” the researchers wrote.
 

Slightly Weaker Association

Compared with participants with a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/day, participants with CKD who consumed 1.0 g/kg/day of protein had a 12% reduced risk for death. At an intake of 1.2 g/kg/day, the mortality risk decreased by 21%. It decreased by 27% at a protein intake of 1.4 g/kg/day. In patients without CKD, the corresponding risk reductions were 23%, 37%, and 44%.

While in participants without CKD, mortality decreased by 15% with each increase in protein intake of 0.2 g/kg/day, in patients with CKD, the decrease was only 8%.

The association did not change according to whether the protein was of animal or plant origin. The age of the study participants (ie, whether they were under or over age 75 years) also did not play a role.
 

Benefits Outweigh Drawbacks

The researchers pointed out that the biological effects of protein sources could depend on the total intake, as well as the proportion of plant protein in the diet. “Not only did 68% of total protein come from animal sources in our study, but also the mean protein intake was well above the current recommendations for persons with moderate CKD,” they wrote. It is therefore unclear whether the results could be extrapolated to older patients who follow a plant-based or low-protein diet.

“The stronger associations in participants without CKD suggest that the benefits of proteins may outweigh the downsides in older persons with mild or moderate CKD,” the researchers concluded. 

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detail best practices for pediatricians in evaluating dental indications of child abuse and how to work with other physicians to detect and report these incidents.

METHODOLOGY:

• Approximately 323,000 children in the United States were identified as having experienced physical abuse in 2006, the most recent year evaluated, according to the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.
• One in seven children in the United States are abused or neglected each year; craniofacial, head, face, and neck injuries occur in more than half of child abuse cases.
• Children with orofacial and torso bruising who are younger than age 4 years are at risk for future, more serious abuse.
• Child trafficking survivors are twice as likely to have dental issues due to poor nutrition and inadequate care.

TAKEAWAY:

• In cases of possible oral sexual abuse, physicians should test for sexually transmitted infections and document incidents to support forensic investigations.
• Pediatricians should consult with forensic pediatric dentists or child abuse specialists for assistance in evaluating bite marks or any other indications of abuse.
• If a parent fails to seek treatment for a child’s oral or dental disease after detection, pediatricians should report the case to child protective services regarding concerns of dental neglect.
• Because trafficked children may receive medical or dental care while in captivity, physicians should use screening tools to identify children at risk of trafficking, regardless of gender.
• Physicians should be mindful of having a bias against reporting because of sharing a similar background to the parents or other caregivers of a child who is suspected of experiencing abuse.

IN PRACTICE:

“Pediatric dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons, whose advanced education programs include a mandated child abuse curriculum, can provide valuable information and assistance to other health care providers about oral and dental aspects of child abuse and neglect,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anupama Rao Tate, DMD, MPH, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and was published online in Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were reported.

DISCLOSURES:

Susan A. Fischer-Owens reported financial connections with Colgate. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detail best practices for pediatricians in evaluating dental indications of child abuse and how to work with other physicians to detect and report these incidents.

METHODOLOGY:

• Approximately 323,000 children in the United States were identified as having experienced physical abuse in 2006, the most recent year evaluated, according to the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.
• One in seven children in the United States are abused or neglected each year; craniofacial, head, face, and neck injuries occur in more than half of child abuse cases.
• Children with orofacial and torso bruising who are younger than age 4 years are at risk for future, more serious abuse.
• Child trafficking survivors are twice as likely to have dental issues due to poor nutrition and inadequate care.

TAKEAWAY:

• In cases of possible oral sexual abuse, physicians should test for sexually transmitted infections and document incidents to support forensic investigations.
• Pediatricians should consult with forensic pediatric dentists or child abuse specialists for assistance in evaluating bite marks or any other indications of abuse.
• If a parent fails to seek treatment for a child’s oral or dental disease after detection, pediatricians should report the case to child protective services regarding concerns of dental neglect.
• Because trafficked children may receive medical or dental care while in captivity, physicians should use screening tools to identify children at risk of trafficking, regardless of gender.
• Physicians should be mindful of having a bias against reporting because of sharing a similar background to the parents or other caregivers of a child who is suspected of experiencing abuse.

IN PRACTICE:

“Pediatric dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons, whose advanced education programs include a mandated child abuse curriculum, can provide valuable information and assistance to other health care providers about oral and dental aspects of child abuse and neglect,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anupama Rao Tate, DMD, MPH, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and was published online in Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were reported.

DISCLOSURES:

Susan A. Fischer-Owens reported financial connections with Colgate. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detail best practices for pediatricians in evaluating dental indications of child abuse and how to work with other physicians to detect and report these incidents.

METHODOLOGY:

• Approximately 323,000 children in the United States were identified as having experienced physical abuse in 2006, the most recent year evaluated, according to the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.
• One in seven children in the United States are abused or neglected each year; craniofacial, head, face, and neck injuries occur in more than half of child abuse cases.
• Children with orofacial and torso bruising who are younger than age 4 years are at risk for future, more serious abuse.
• Child trafficking survivors are twice as likely to have dental issues due to poor nutrition and inadequate care.

TAKEAWAY:

• In cases of possible oral sexual abuse, physicians should test for sexually transmitted infections and document incidents to support forensic investigations.
• Pediatricians should consult with forensic pediatric dentists or child abuse specialists for assistance in evaluating bite marks or any other indications of abuse.
• If a parent fails to seek treatment for a child’s oral or dental disease after detection, pediatricians should report the case to child protective services regarding concerns of dental neglect.
• Because trafficked children may receive medical or dental care while in captivity, physicians should use screening tools to identify children at risk of trafficking, regardless of gender.
• Physicians should be mindful of having a bias against reporting because of sharing a similar background to the parents or other caregivers of a child who is suspected of experiencing abuse.

IN PRACTICE:

“Pediatric dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons, whose advanced education programs include a mandated child abuse curriculum, can provide valuable information and assistance to other health care providers about oral and dental aspects of child abuse and neglect,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anupama Rao Tate, DMD, MPH, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and was published online in Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were reported.

DISCLOSURES:

Susan A. Fischer-Owens reported financial connections with Colgate. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Around one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with a high body mass index (BMI) may be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment after Medicare allowed Part D plans to cover the drug for patients with a BMI ≥ 27 and a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of their diabetes status.

METHODOLOGY:

• In March 2024, Medicare approved the coverage of semaglutide by Part D plans for patients with a high BMI and existing CVD, irrespective of their diabetes status. This decision follows the SELECT trial results, showing that semaglutide lowered the risk for cardiovascular events in some patients without diabetes.
• This study aimed to describe the Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment and estimated maximum costs to Medicare Part D.
• The researchers included 5111 individuals aged ≥ 65 years with self-reported Medicare enrollment in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020, all of whom had a BMI ≥ 27 and were likely to benefit from semaglutide treatment.
• They evaluated the following potential definitions of established CVD that could be considered by the Part D plan: physician-provided diagnosis of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery disease, or angina; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD between 7.5% and < 20.0%; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD of ≥ 20%; or fulfillment of any of the previous three criteria.
• Data on interview responses, medication use, clinical examinations, laboratory results, and diabetes diagnoses were obtained from the participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• This study found that 3.6 million individuals (14.2%) were deemed highly likely to qualify for semaglutide treatment for the first time, and broadening the criteria for established CVD could increase this number to 15.2 million individuals (60.9%).
• If all newly eligible beneficiaries were to receive semaglutide treatment, Medicare spending could increase by $34-$145 billion annually.
• Even with more conservative definitions of CVD and a significant portion of individuals not maintaining long-term adherence to semaglutide treatment, costs could still increase by $10 billion annually.
• Younger, generally healthier, female Medicare beneficiaries were still likely to remain ineligible for semaglutide treatment according to the coverage provided by Part D Medicare plans.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although approximately one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with elevated BMI is likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide, the majority will remain ineligible if a narrow definition of established CVD is used by Part D plans. Weight control has benefits for patients with elevated BMI, so the definition of established CVD used by Part D plans for coverage of semaglutide could have outsized public health implications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Chaitoff, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

This analysis relied on self-reported cases of CVD. The study was also limited to only community-dwelling adults. It estimated maximum budgetary impacts but did not account for payment reforms introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act or for absolute contraindications to semaglutide.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, serving as consultants, and having other ties with some institutions.

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

TOPLINE:

Around one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with a high body mass index (BMI) may be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment after Medicare allowed Part D plans to cover the drug for patients with a BMI ≥ 27 and a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of their diabetes status.

METHODOLOGY:

• In March 2024, Medicare approved the coverage of semaglutide by Part D plans for patients with a high BMI and existing CVD, irrespective of their diabetes status. This decision follows the SELECT trial results, showing that semaglutide lowered the risk for cardiovascular events in some patients without diabetes.
• This study aimed to describe the Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment and estimated maximum costs to Medicare Part D.
• The researchers included 5111 individuals aged ≥ 65 years with self-reported Medicare enrollment in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020, all of whom had a BMI ≥ 27 and were likely to benefit from semaglutide treatment.
• They evaluated the following potential definitions of established CVD that could be considered by the Part D plan: physician-provided diagnosis of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery disease, or angina; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD between 7.5% and < 20.0%; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD of ≥ 20%; or fulfillment of any of the previous three criteria.
• Data on interview responses, medication use, clinical examinations, laboratory results, and diabetes diagnoses were obtained from the participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• This study found that 3.6 million individuals (14.2%) were deemed highly likely to qualify for semaglutide treatment for the first time, and broadening the criteria for established CVD could increase this number to 15.2 million individuals (60.9%).
• If all newly eligible beneficiaries were to receive semaglutide treatment, Medicare spending could increase by $34-$145 billion annually.
• Even with more conservative definitions of CVD and a significant portion of individuals not maintaining long-term adherence to semaglutide treatment, costs could still increase by $10 billion annually.
• Younger, generally healthier, female Medicare beneficiaries were still likely to remain ineligible for semaglutide treatment according to the coverage provided by Part D Medicare plans.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although approximately one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with elevated BMI is likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide, the majority will remain ineligible if a narrow definition of established CVD is used by Part D plans. Weight control has benefits for patients with elevated BMI, so the definition of established CVD used by Part D plans for coverage of semaglutide could have outsized public health implications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Chaitoff, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

This analysis relied on self-reported cases of CVD. The study was also limited to only community-dwelling adults. It estimated maximum budgetary impacts but did not account for payment reforms introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act or for absolute contraindications to semaglutide.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, serving as consultants, and having other ties with some institutions.

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

TOPLINE:

Around one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with a high body mass index (BMI) may be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment after Medicare allowed Part D plans to cover the drug for patients with a BMI ≥ 27 and a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of their diabetes status.

METHODOLOGY:

• In March 2024, Medicare approved the coverage of semaglutide by Part D plans for patients with a high BMI and existing CVD, irrespective of their diabetes status. This decision follows the SELECT trial results, showing that semaglutide lowered the risk for cardiovascular events in some patients without diabetes.
• This study aimed to describe the Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment and estimated maximum costs to Medicare Part D.
• The researchers included 5111 individuals aged ≥ 65 years with self-reported Medicare enrollment in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020, all of whom had a BMI ≥ 27 and were likely to benefit from semaglutide treatment.
• They evaluated the following potential definitions of established CVD that could be considered by the Part D plan: physician-provided diagnosis of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery disease, or angina; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD between 7.5% and < 20.0%; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD of ≥ 20%; or fulfillment of any of the previous three criteria.
• Data on interview responses, medication use, clinical examinations, laboratory results, and diabetes diagnoses were obtained from the participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• This study found that 3.6 million individuals (14.2%) were deemed highly likely to qualify for semaglutide treatment for the first time, and broadening the criteria for established CVD could increase this number to 15.2 million individuals (60.9%).
• If all newly eligible beneficiaries were to receive semaglutide treatment, Medicare spending could increase by $34-$145 billion annually.
• Even with more conservative definitions of CVD and a significant portion of individuals not maintaining long-term adherence to semaglutide treatment, costs could still increase by $10 billion annually.
• Younger, generally healthier, female Medicare beneficiaries were still likely to remain ineligible for semaglutide treatment according to the coverage provided by Part D Medicare plans.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although approximately one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with elevated BMI is likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide, the majority will remain ineligible if a narrow definition of established CVD is used by Part D plans. Weight control has benefits for patients with elevated BMI, so the definition of established CVD used by Part D plans for coverage of semaglutide could have outsized public health implications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Chaitoff, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

This analysis relied on self-reported cases of CVD. The study was also limited to only community-dwelling adults. It estimated maximum budgetary impacts but did not account for payment reforms introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act or for absolute contraindications to semaglutide.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, serving as consultants, and having other ties with some institutions.

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

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

Repeated 1-minute bursts of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) are more effective than conventional moderate, continuous exercise for improving aerobic fitness after stroke, according to a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

“We hoped that we would see improvements in cardiovascular fitness after HIIT and anticipated that these improvements would be greater than in the moderate-intensity group, but we were pleasantly surprised by the degree of improvement we observed,” said Ada Tang, PT, PhD, associate professor of health sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. “The improvements seen in the HIIT group were twofold higher than in the other group.”

The results were published in Stroke.
 

Clinically Meaningful

Researchers compared the effects of 12 weeks of short-interval HIIT with those of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on peak oxygen uptake (VO₂peak), cardiovascular risk factors, and mobility outcomes after stroke.

They randomly assigned participants to receive 3 days per week of HIIT or traditional moderate exercise sessions for 12 weeks. Participants’ mean age was 65 years, and 39% were women. They enrolled at a mean age of 1.8 years after sustaining a mild stroke.

A total of 42 participants were randomized to HIIT and 40 to MICT. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline, and both groups exercised on adaptive recumbent steppers, which are suitable for stroke survivors with varying abilities.

The short-interval HIIT protocol involved 10 1-minute intervals of high-intensity exercise, interspersed with nine 1-minute low-intensity intervals, for a total of 19 minutes. HIIT intervals targeted 80% heart rate reserve (HRR) and progressed by 10% every 4 weeks up to 100% HRR. The low-intensity intervals targeted 30% HRR.

The traditional MICT protocol for stroke rehabilitation targeted 40% HRR for 20 minutes and progressed by 10% HRR and 5 minutes every 4 weeks, up to 60% HRR for 30 minutes.

The HIIT group’s cardiorespiratory fitness levels (VO₂peak) improved twice as much as those of the MICT group: 3.5 mL of oxygen consumed in 1 minute per kg of body weight (mL/kg/min) compared with 1.8 mL/kg/min.

Of note, changes in VO₂peak from baseline remained above the clinically important threshold of 1.0 mL/kg/min at 8-week follow-up in the HIIT group (1.71 mL/kg/min) but not in the MICT group (0.67 mL/kg/min).

Both groups increased their 6-minute walk test distances by 8.8 m at 12 weeks and by 18.5 m at 20 weeks. No between-group differences were found for cardiovascular risk or mobility outcomes, and no adverse events occurred in either group.

On average, the HIIT group spent 36% of total training time exercising at intensities above 80% HRR throughout the intervention, while the MICT group spent 42% of time at intensities of 40%-59% HRR.

The study was limited by a small sample size of high-functioning individuals who sustained a mild stroke. Enrollment was halted for 2 years due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, limiting the study’s statistical power.

Nevertheless, the authors concluded, “Given that a lack of time is a significant barrier to the implementation of aerobic exercise in stroke clinical practice, our findings suggest that short-interval HIIT may be an effective alternative to traditional MICT for improving VO₂peak after stroke, with potential clinically meaningful benefits sustained in the short-term.”

“Our findings show that a short HIIT protocol is possible in people with stroke, which is exciting to see,” said Tang. “But there are different factors that clinicians should consider before recommending this training for their patients, such as their health status and their physical status. Stroke rehabilitation specialists, including stroke physical therapists, can advise on how to proceed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of HIIT.”
 

Selected Patients May Benefit

“Broad implementation of this intervention may be premature without further research,” said Ryan Glatt, CPT, senior brain health coach and director of the FitBrain Program at Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, California. “The study focused on relatively high-functioning stroke survivors, which raises questions about the applicability of the results to those with more severe impairments.” Mr. Glatt did not participate in the research.

“Additional studies are needed to confirm whether these findings are applicable to more diverse and severely affected populations and to assess the long-term sustainability of the benefits observed,” he said. “Also, the lack of significant improvements in other critical outcomes, such as mobility, suggests limitations in the broader application of HIIT for stroke rehabilitation.”

“While HIIT shows potential, it should be approached with caution,” Mr. Glatt continued. “It may benefit select patients, but replacing traditional exercise protocols with HIIT should not be done in all cases. More robust evidence and careful consideration of individual patient needs are essential.”

This study was funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Tang reported grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Mr. Glatt declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Repeated 1-minute bursts of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) are more effective than conventional moderate, continuous exercise for improving aerobic fitness after stroke, according to a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

“We hoped that we would see improvements in cardiovascular fitness after HIIT and anticipated that these improvements would be greater than in the moderate-intensity group, but we were pleasantly surprised by the degree of improvement we observed,” said Ada Tang, PT, PhD, associate professor of health sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. “The improvements seen in the HIIT group were twofold higher than in the other group.”

The results were published in Stroke.
 

Clinically Meaningful

Researchers compared the effects of 12 weeks of short-interval HIIT with those of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on peak oxygen uptake (VO₂peak), cardiovascular risk factors, and mobility outcomes after stroke.

They randomly assigned participants to receive 3 days per week of HIIT or traditional moderate exercise sessions for 12 weeks. Participants’ mean age was 65 years, and 39% were women. They enrolled at a mean age of 1.8 years after sustaining a mild stroke.

A total of 42 participants were randomized to HIIT and 40 to MICT. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline, and both groups exercised on adaptive recumbent steppers, which are suitable for stroke survivors with varying abilities.

The short-interval HIIT protocol involved 10 1-minute intervals of high-intensity exercise, interspersed with nine 1-minute low-intensity intervals, for a total of 19 minutes. HIIT intervals targeted 80% heart rate reserve (HRR) and progressed by 10% every 4 weeks up to 100% HRR. The low-intensity intervals targeted 30% HRR.

The traditional MICT protocol for stroke rehabilitation targeted 40% HRR for 20 minutes and progressed by 10% HRR and 5 minutes every 4 weeks, up to 60% HRR for 30 minutes.

The HIIT group’s cardiorespiratory fitness levels (VO₂peak) improved twice as much as those of the MICT group: 3.5 mL of oxygen consumed in 1 minute per kg of body weight (mL/kg/min) compared with 1.8 mL/kg/min.

Of note, changes in VO₂peak from baseline remained above the clinically important threshold of 1.0 mL/kg/min at 8-week follow-up in the HIIT group (1.71 mL/kg/min) but not in the MICT group (0.67 mL/kg/min).

Both groups increased their 6-minute walk test distances by 8.8 m at 12 weeks and by 18.5 m at 20 weeks. No between-group differences were found for cardiovascular risk or mobility outcomes, and no adverse events occurred in either group.

On average, the HIIT group spent 36% of total training time exercising at intensities above 80% HRR throughout the intervention, while the MICT group spent 42% of time at intensities of 40%-59% HRR.

The study was limited by a small sample size of high-functioning individuals who sustained a mild stroke. Enrollment was halted for 2 years due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, limiting the study’s statistical power.

Nevertheless, the authors concluded, “Given that a lack of time is a significant barrier to the implementation of aerobic exercise in stroke clinical practice, our findings suggest that short-interval HIIT may be an effective alternative to traditional MICT for improving VO₂peak after stroke, with potential clinically meaningful benefits sustained in the short-term.”

“Our findings show that a short HIIT protocol is possible in people with stroke, which is exciting to see,” said Tang. “But there are different factors that clinicians should consider before recommending this training for their patients, such as their health status and their physical status. Stroke rehabilitation specialists, including stroke physical therapists, can advise on how to proceed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of HIIT.”
 

Selected Patients May Benefit

“Broad implementation of this intervention may be premature without further research,” said Ryan Glatt, CPT, senior brain health coach and director of the FitBrain Program at Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, California. “The study focused on relatively high-functioning stroke survivors, which raises questions about the applicability of the results to those with more severe impairments.” Mr. Glatt did not participate in the research.

“Additional studies are needed to confirm whether these findings are applicable to more diverse and severely affected populations and to assess the long-term sustainability of the benefits observed,” he said. “Also, the lack of significant improvements in other critical outcomes, such as mobility, suggests limitations in the broader application of HIIT for stroke rehabilitation.”

“While HIIT shows potential, it should be approached with caution,” Mr. Glatt continued. “It may benefit select patients, but replacing traditional exercise protocols with HIIT should not be done in all cases. More robust evidence and careful consideration of individual patient needs are essential.”

This study was funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Tang reported grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Mr. Glatt declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Repeated 1-minute bursts of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) are more effective than conventional moderate, continuous exercise for improving aerobic fitness after stroke, according to a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

“We hoped that we would see improvements in cardiovascular fitness after HIIT and anticipated that these improvements would be greater than in the moderate-intensity group, but we were pleasantly surprised by the degree of improvement we observed,” said Ada Tang, PT, PhD, associate professor of health sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. “The improvements seen in the HIIT group were twofold higher than in the other group.”

The results were published in Stroke.
 

Clinically Meaningful

Researchers compared the effects of 12 weeks of short-interval HIIT with those of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on peak oxygen uptake (VO₂peak), cardiovascular risk factors, and mobility outcomes after stroke.

They randomly assigned participants to receive 3 days per week of HIIT or traditional moderate exercise sessions for 12 weeks. Participants’ mean age was 65 years, and 39% were women. They enrolled at a mean age of 1.8 years after sustaining a mild stroke.

A total of 42 participants were randomized to HIIT and 40 to MICT. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline, and both groups exercised on adaptive recumbent steppers, which are suitable for stroke survivors with varying abilities.

The short-interval HIIT protocol involved 10 1-minute intervals of high-intensity exercise, interspersed with nine 1-minute low-intensity intervals, for a total of 19 minutes. HIIT intervals targeted 80% heart rate reserve (HRR) and progressed by 10% every 4 weeks up to 100% HRR. The low-intensity intervals targeted 30% HRR.

The traditional MICT protocol for stroke rehabilitation targeted 40% HRR for 20 minutes and progressed by 10% HRR and 5 minutes every 4 weeks, up to 60% HRR for 30 minutes.

The HIIT group’s cardiorespiratory fitness levels (VO₂peak) improved twice as much as those of the MICT group: 3.5 mL of oxygen consumed in 1 minute per kg of body weight (mL/kg/min) compared with 1.8 mL/kg/min.

Of note, changes in VO₂peak from baseline remained above the clinically important threshold of 1.0 mL/kg/min at 8-week follow-up in the HIIT group (1.71 mL/kg/min) but not in the MICT group (0.67 mL/kg/min).

Both groups increased their 6-minute walk test distances by 8.8 m at 12 weeks and by 18.5 m at 20 weeks. No between-group differences were found for cardiovascular risk or mobility outcomes, and no adverse events occurred in either group.

On average, the HIIT group spent 36% of total training time exercising at intensities above 80% HRR throughout the intervention, while the MICT group spent 42% of time at intensities of 40%-59% HRR.

The study was limited by a small sample size of high-functioning individuals who sustained a mild stroke. Enrollment was halted for 2 years due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, limiting the study’s statistical power.

Nevertheless, the authors concluded, “Given that a lack of time is a significant barrier to the implementation of aerobic exercise in stroke clinical practice, our findings suggest that short-interval HIIT may be an effective alternative to traditional MICT for improving VO₂peak after stroke, with potential clinically meaningful benefits sustained in the short-term.”

“Our findings show that a short HIIT protocol is possible in people with stroke, which is exciting to see,” said Tang. “But there are different factors that clinicians should consider before recommending this training for their patients, such as their health status and their physical status. Stroke rehabilitation specialists, including stroke physical therapists, can advise on how to proceed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of HIIT.”
 

Selected Patients May Benefit

“Broad implementation of this intervention may be premature without further research,” said Ryan Glatt, CPT, senior brain health coach and director of the FitBrain Program at Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, California. “The study focused on relatively high-functioning stroke survivors, which raises questions about the applicability of the results to those with more severe impairments.” Mr. Glatt did not participate in the research.

“Additional studies are needed to confirm whether these findings are applicable to more diverse and severely affected populations and to assess the long-term sustainability of the benefits observed,” he said. “Also, the lack of significant improvements in other critical outcomes, such as mobility, suggests limitations in the broader application of HIIT for stroke rehabilitation.”

“While HIIT shows potential, it should be approached with caution,” Mr. Glatt continued. “It may benefit select patients, but replacing traditional exercise protocols with HIIT should not be done in all cases. More robust evidence and careful consideration of individual patient needs are essential.”

This study was funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Tang reported grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Mr. Glatt declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard method for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and removing precancerous polyps.

The recommended age for CRC screening in the United States spans 45-75 years, with the benefits of colonoscopy diminishing considerably after this point.

Older adults are much more likely to experience complications before, during, and after a colonoscopy. Bowel preps can cause dehydration or electrolyte problems in some, while bleeding and bowel perforation can occur perioperatively, and pulmonary or cardiovascular complications may arise postoperatively.

These risks often outweigh the benefits of catching a precancerous lesion or early-stage cancer, especially given the low rates of advanced neoplasia and CRC detected from screening and surveillance after age 75. Yet the research overall suggests that more than half of older individuals continue to receive screening and surveillance colonoscopies outside the recommended screening window.

So is there a point in time when a person is too old to receive a colonoscopy? The answer is not always clear-cut, but life expectancy should be a key consideration.

“Taking the most extreme example, if you have 6 months to live, finding early-stage cancer is not going to help you,” Michael Rothberg, MD, vice chair for research at Cleveland Clinic’s Medical Institute and director of the Center for Value-Based Care Research, told Medscape Medical News.

For those with more time, the benefits of continued screening and surveillance may outweigh the risks, but when that balance shifts from helpful to not helpful remains inexact, Dr. Rothberg noted.

What’s Recommended?

In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the CRC screening threshold to age 45, recommending all adults aged between 45 and 75 years receive screening.

For those aged between 76 and 85 years, the USPSTF upheld its 2016 recommendation of selective screening, noting that the “net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small” and should be determined on an individual basis. The USPSTF, however, did not provide recommendations on surveillance colonoscopies among those with previously identified polyps.

In November 2023, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) issued a clinical practice update that provided advice on risk stratification for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance. For adults older than 75 years specifically, the AGA recommended that the decision to continue CRC screening or perform post-polypectomy surveillance be based on risks, benefits, comorbidities, and screening history and decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance, previously unscreened patients without comorbidities could benefit from screening beyond age 75 — up to age 80 for men and 90 for women — while those who have had regular colonoscopies, per recommended guidelines, but severe comorbidities that may limit life expectancy could stop sooner, even by age 65.

Although an individualized approach leaves room for variation, it’s essential to consider life expectancy and the time it takes for a polyp to progress to CRC, as well as the risks associated with the procedure itself. Certain older adults are “less likely to live long enough to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy, due to competing, non-CRC mortality risks,” and clinicians should discuss these risks with their patients, the experts explained.
 

When to Stop Screening Colonoscopies

Research shows that screening colonoscopies continue well after the recommended stop age.

A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study found, for instance, that a large proportion of screening colonoscopies occurred among the 7067 patients who were 75 years and older with a life expectancy < 10 years. Overall, 30% of patients aged between 76 and 80 years with a limited life expectancy had a colonoscopy. That percentage increased to 71% for those aged 81-85 years and to 100% for those older than 85 years.

But the benefits of screening were minimal. Overall, colonoscopies detected advanced neoplasia in 5.4% of patients aged 76-80 years, 6.2% of those aged 81-85 years, and 9.5% of those older than 85 years. Only 15 patients (0.2%) had CRC detected via colonoscopy, five of whom underwent cancer treatment. Of those five, four had a life expectancy ≥ 10 years, and one had a life expectancy < 10 years.

At the same time, adverse events requiring hospitalization were common 10 days post-colonoscopy (13.58 per 1000), and the risk for hospitalization increased with age.

“For all kinds of screening, we’re not that comfortable in America with the idea that people are eventually going to die, but as you get older, the potential benefits for screening decrease,” study author Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

In general, life expectancy provides a good predictor of whether people should continue screening or receive treatment following a CRC diagnosis.

Patients aged 76-80 years in good health, for instance, could benefit from screening and, potentially, treatment, Dr. Rothberg said. And “if doctors don’t feel comfortable or confident about predicting life expectancy, taking comorbid illnesses into account can be helpful, especially for that age range.”
 

Weighing Surveillance Benefits

Surveillance colonoscopy is often recommended post-polypectomy to reduce the risk for CRC. But even in this higher-risk population, those older than 75 years may not benefit.

Recent evidence indicates that those with a history of one or two adenomas less than 1 cm in size have only a slightly (1.3-fold) increased risk for incident CRC — and no significant increased risk for fatal CRC.

Another recent study found that detecting CRC at surveillance colonoscopy was rare among older adults. In surveillance colonoscopies performed among 9601 individuals aged 70-85 years with prior adenomas, 12% had advanced neoplasia detected, and only 0.3% had CRC detected.

Similar rates of advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) were reported in another recent analysis of more than 9800 adults older than 65 years receiving surveillance colonoscopies.

Despite the low rates of polyp and CRC detection, nearly 90% of patients with recommendation information available received advice to return for a future colonoscopy. Even among patients with no polyps or small ones, almost 60% who had life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return.

Although someone with prior adenomas has a higher risk for CRC, that doesn’t tell the whole story for an individual patient, Samir Gupta, MD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of California San Diego, and co-lead of the Cancer Control Program at Moores Cancer Center, told this news organization. For older adults, it’s vital to consider the competing risks and how much time it might take for CRC to develop.

At Digestive Disease Week in May, Dr. Gupta presented new research that looked at cumulative risk among patients aged 75 years and older with prior precancerous polyps vs prior normal colonoscopies. Although those with prior adenomas had a higher risk for CRC overall, their cumulative CRC risk was low — about 0.3% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years. Cumulative CRC deaths were even lower — 0.2% at 5 years and 0.7% at 10 years — while the risk of dying from something other than CRC was 20% at 5 years and 40% at 10 years.

“What this means to me is that patients who are 75 and older should think really carefully about whether they want to do surveillance,” said Dr. Gupta, who coauthored the AGA’s clinical practice update. “Someone who is very healthy and doesn’t have obvious medical problems can look at that risk for developing colon cancer and the risk of dying and make a decision about whether there’s enough concern to go ahead with surveillance.”

Those with competing health priorities, on other hand, should likely concentrate on those instead, he said, and feel reassured that even if they choose not to do surveillance, they’re probably not doing themselves any harm.

“The bottom line is that referring older adults or frail adults for surveillance colonoscopy shouldn’t be a rubber stamp or check-the-box action,” Dr. Gupta said. “We need to think about it carefully and give ourselves — as clinicians and patients — the room to decide that it may not need to take high priority.”
 

What to Tell Patients

Overall, older adults who have had prior colonoscopies, no or low-risk polyps, and low CRC risk will likely face greater risks from the procedure than benefits.

“The more invasive the screening the test, the more dangerous it could be,” Dr. Rothberg noted.

Many patients, however, are open to stopping and often trust their primary care provider in the decision-making process, said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. “But the systems we have in place don’t optimally support that decision-making at the time it matters most.”

For example, at a prior colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist may recommend surveillance again in 5-7 years. But in the interim, the patient could have new medications or develop comorbidities and other health issues. Rather than defer to the gastroenterologist’s recommendations from years ago, clinicians and patients can reassess the pros and cons of screening or surveillance based on current circumstances, Dr. Calderwood said.

“There should be lines of communication and systems of support to allow primary care providers to decide whether it is still needed,” she said.

While some may be ready to stop, other patients are going to continue to want and ask about CRC screening or surveillance, Dr. Rothberg said.

In these instances, communication style matters.

“You don’t want to tell a patient that they’re not going to be screened because they’re not going to live long enough to benefit,” Dr. Rothberg said.

However, steering people toward less invasive tests or telling them it’s important to give other health problems priority may be more sensitive ways to communicate that it’s time to ramp down or halt screening.

“Sometimes when you say you’re going to stop cancer screening, older adults misperceive that you’re giving up on them,” Dr. Gupta said. “We spend 30-40 years driving home the message that prevention and screening are important, and then it feels like we’re taking it away, so we need to find the best way to discuss it and make the choice that’s comfortable for them.”

Dr. Rothberg, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Calderwood disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard method for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and removing precancerous polyps.

The recommended age for CRC screening in the United States spans 45-75 years, with the benefits of colonoscopy diminishing considerably after this point.

Older adults are much more likely to experience complications before, during, and after a colonoscopy. Bowel preps can cause dehydration or electrolyte problems in some, while bleeding and bowel perforation can occur perioperatively, and pulmonary or cardiovascular complications may arise postoperatively.

These risks often outweigh the benefits of catching a precancerous lesion or early-stage cancer, especially given the low rates of advanced neoplasia and CRC detected from screening and surveillance after age 75. Yet the research overall suggests that more than half of older individuals continue to receive screening and surveillance colonoscopies outside the recommended screening window.

So is there a point in time when a person is too old to receive a colonoscopy? The answer is not always clear-cut, but life expectancy should be a key consideration.

“Taking the most extreme example, if you have 6 months to live, finding early-stage cancer is not going to help you,” Michael Rothberg, MD, vice chair for research at Cleveland Clinic’s Medical Institute and director of the Center for Value-Based Care Research, told Medscape Medical News.

For those with more time, the benefits of continued screening and surveillance may outweigh the risks, but when that balance shifts from helpful to not helpful remains inexact, Dr. Rothberg noted.

What’s Recommended?

In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the CRC screening threshold to age 45, recommending all adults aged between 45 and 75 years receive screening.

For those aged between 76 and 85 years, the USPSTF upheld its 2016 recommendation of selective screening, noting that the “net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small” and should be determined on an individual basis. The USPSTF, however, did not provide recommendations on surveillance colonoscopies among those with previously identified polyps.

In November 2023, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) issued a clinical practice update that provided advice on risk stratification for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance. For adults older than 75 years specifically, the AGA recommended that the decision to continue CRC screening or perform post-polypectomy surveillance be based on risks, benefits, comorbidities, and screening history and decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance, previously unscreened patients without comorbidities could benefit from screening beyond age 75 — up to age 80 for men and 90 for women — while those who have had regular colonoscopies, per recommended guidelines, but severe comorbidities that may limit life expectancy could stop sooner, even by age 65.

Although an individualized approach leaves room for variation, it’s essential to consider life expectancy and the time it takes for a polyp to progress to CRC, as well as the risks associated with the procedure itself. Certain older adults are “less likely to live long enough to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy, due to competing, non-CRC mortality risks,” and clinicians should discuss these risks with their patients, the experts explained.
 

When to Stop Screening Colonoscopies

Research shows that screening colonoscopies continue well after the recommended stop age.

A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study found, for instance, that a large proportion of screening colonoscopies occurred among the 7067 patients who were 75 years and older with a life expectancy < 10 years. Overall, 30% of patients aged between 76 and 80 years with a limited life expectancy had a colonoscopy. That percentage increased to 71% for those aged 81-85 years and to 100% for those older than 85 years.

But the benefits of screening were minimal. Overall, colonoscopies detected advanced neoplasia in 5.4% of patients aged 76-80 years, 6.2% of those aged 81-85 years, and 9.5% of those older than 85 years. Only 15 patients (0.2%) had CRC detected via colonoscopy, five of whom underwent cancer treatment. Of those five, four had a life expectancy ≥ 10 years, and one had a life expectancy < 10 years.

At the same time, adverse events requiring hospitalization were common 10 days post-colonoscopy (13.58 per 1000), and the risk for hospitalization increased with age.

“For all kinds of screening, we’re not that comfortable in America with the idea that people are eventually going to die, but as you get older, the potential benefits for screening decrease,” study author Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

In general, life expectancy provides a good predictor of whether people should continue screening or receive treatment following a CRC diagnosis.

Patients aged 76-80 years in good health, for instance, could benefit from screening and, potentially, treatment, Dr. Rothberg said. And “if doctors don’t feel comfortable or confident about predicting life expectancy, taking comorbid illnesses into account can be helpful, especially for that age range.”
 

Weighing Surveillance Benefits

Surveillance colonoscopy is often recommended post-polypectomy to reduce the risk for CRC. But even in this higher-risk population, those older than 75 years may not benefit.

Recent evidence indicates that those with a history of one or two adenomas less than 1 cm in size have only a slightly (1.3-fold) increased risk for incident CRC — and no significant increased risk for fatal CRC.

Another recent study found that detecting CRC at surveillance colonoscopy was rare among older adults. In surveillance colonoscopies performed among 9601 individuals aged 70-85 years with prior adenomas, 12% had advanced neoplasia detected, and only 0.3% had CRC detected.

Similar rates of advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) were reported in another recent analysis of more than 9800 adults older than 65 years receiving surveillance colonoscopies.

Despite the low rates of polyp and CRC detection, nearly 90% of patients with recommendation information available received advice to return for a future colonoscopy. Even among patients with no polyps or small ones, almost 60% who had life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return.

Although someone with prior adenomas has a higher risk for CRC, that doesn’t tell the whole story for an individual patient, Samir Gupta, MD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of California San Diego, and co-lead of the Cancer Control Program at Moores Cancer Center, told this news organization. For older adults, it’s vital to consider the competing risks and how much time it might take for CRC to develop.

At Digestive Disease Week in May, Dr. Gupta presented new research that looked at cumulative risk among patients aged 75 years and older with prior precancerous polyps vs prior normal colonoscopies. Although those with prior adenomas had a higher risk for CRC overall, their cumulative CRC risk was low — about 0.3% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years. Cumulative CRC deaths were even lower — 0.2% at 5 years and 0.7% at 10 years — while the risk of dying from something other than CRC was 20% at 5 years and 40% at 10 years.

“What this means to me is that patients who are 75 and older should think really carefully about whether they want to do surveillance,” said Dr. Gupta, who coauthored the AGA’s clinical practice update. “Someone who is very healthy and doesn’t have obvious medical problems can look at that risk for developing colon cancer and the risk of dying and make a decision about whether there’s enough concern to go ahead with surveillance.”

Those with competing health priorities, on other hand, should likely concentrate on those instead, he said, and feel reassured that even if they choose not to do surveillance, they’re probably not doing themselves any harm.

“The bottom line is that referring older adults or frail adults for surveillance colonoscopy shouldn’t be a rubber stamp or check-the-box action,” Dr. Gupta said. “We need to think about it carefully and give ourselves — as clinicians and patients — the room to decide that it may not need to take high priority.”
 

What to Tell Patients

Overall, older adults who have had prior colonoscopies, no or low-risk polyps, and low CRC risk will likely face greater risks from the procedure than benefits.

“The more invasive the screening the test, the more dangerous it could be,” Dr. Rothberg noted.

Many patients, however, are open to stopping and often trust their primary care provider in the decision-making process, said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. “But the systems we have in place don’t optimally support that decision-making at the time it matters most.”

For example, at a prior colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist may recommend surveillance again in 5-7 years. But in the interim, the patient could have new medications or develop comorbidities and other health issues. Rather than defer to the gastroenterologist’s recommendations from years ago, clinicians and patients can reassess the pros and cons of screening or surveillance based on current circumstances, Dr. Calderwood said.

“There should be lines of communication and systems of support to allow primary care providers to decide whether it is still needed,” she said.

While some may be ready to stop, other patients are going to continue to want and ask about CRC screening or surveillance, Dr. Rothberg said.

In these instances, communication style matters.

“You don’t want to tell a patient that they’re not going to be screened because they’re not going to live long enough to benefit,” Dr. Rothberg said.

However, steering people toward less invasive tests or telling them it’s important to give other health problems priority may be more sensitive ways to communicate that it’s time to ramp down or halt screening.

“Sometimes when you say you’re going to stop cancer screening, older adults misperceive that you’re giving up on them,” Dr. Gupta said. “We spend 30-40 years driving home the message that prevention and screening are important, and then it feels like we’re taking it away, so we need to find the best way to discuss it and make the choice that’s comfortable for them.”

Dr. Rothberg, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Calderwood disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard method for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and removing precancerous polyps.

The recommended age for CRC screening in the United States spans 45-75 years, with the benefits of colonoscopy diminishing considerably after this point.

Older adults are much more likely to experience complications before, during, and after a colonoscopy. Bowel preps can cause dehydration or electrolyte problems in some, while bleeding and bowel perforation can occur perioperatively, and pulmonary or cardiovascular complications may arise postoperatively.

These risks often outweigh the benefits of catching a precancerous lesion or early-stage cancer, especially given the low rates of advanced neoplasia and CRC detected from screening and surveillance after age 75. Yet the research overall suggests that more than half of older individuals continue to receive screening and surveillance colonoscopies outside the recommended screening window.

So is there a point in time when a person is too old to receive a colonoscopy? The answer is not always clear-cut, but life expectancy should be a key consideration.

“Taking the most extreme example, if you have 6 months to live, finding early-stage cancer is not going to help you,” Michael Rothberg, MD, vice chair for research at Cleveland Clinic’s Medical Institute and director of the Center for Value-Based Care Research, told Medscape Medical News.

For those with more time, the benefits of continued screening and surveillance may outweigh the risks, but when that balance shifts from helpful to not helpful remains inexact, Dr. Rothberg noted.

What’s Recommended?

In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the CRC screening threshold to age 45, recommending all adults aged between 45 and 75 years receive screening.

For those aged between 76 and 85 years, the USPSTF upheld its 2016 recommendation of selective screening, noting that the “net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small” and should be determined on an individual basis. The USPSTF, however, did not provide recommendations on surveillance colonoscopies among those with previously identified polyps.

In November 2023, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) issued a clinical practice update that provided advice on risk stratification for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance. For adults older than 75 years specifically, the AGA recommended that the decision to continue CRC screening or perform post-polypectomy surveillance be based on risks, benefits, comorbidities, and screening history and decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance, previously unscreened patients without comorbidities could benefit from screening beyond age 75 — up to age 80 for men and 90 for women — while those who have had regular colonoscopies, per recommended guidelines, but severe comorbidities that may limit life expectancy could stop sooner, even by age 65.

Although an individualized approach leaves room for variation, it’s essential to consider life expectancy and the time it takes for a polyp to progress to CRC, as well as the risks associated with the procedure itself. Certain older adults are “less likely to live long enough to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy, due to competing, non-CRC mortality risks,” and clinicians should discuss these risks with their patients, the experts explained.
 

When to Stop Screening Colonoscopies

Research shows that screening colonoscopies continue well after the recommended stop age.

A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study found, for instance, that a large proportion of screening colonoscopies occurred among the 7067 patients who were 75 years and older with a life expectancy < 10 years. Overall, 30% of patients aged between 76 and 80 years with a limited life expectancy had a colonoscopy. That percentage increased to 71% for those aged 81-85 years and to 100% for those older than 85 years.

But the benefits of screening were minimal. Overall, colonoscopies detected advanced neoplasia in 5.4% of patients aged 76-80 years, 6.2% of those aged 81-85 years, and 9.5% of those older than 85 years. Only 15 patients (0.2%) had CRC detected via colonoscopy, five of whom underwent cancer treatment. Of those five, four had a life expectancy ≥ 10 years, and one had a life expectancy < 10 years.

At the same time, adverse events requiring hospitalization were common 10 days post-colonoscopy (13.58 per 1000), and the risk for hospitalization increased with age.

“For all kinds of screening, we’re not that comfortable in America with the idea that people are eventually going to die, but as you get older, the potential benefits for screening decrease,” study author Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

In general, life expectancy provides a good predictor of whether people should continue screening or receive treatment following a CRC diagnosis.

Patients aged 76-80 years in good health, for instance, could benefit from screening and, potentially, treatment, Dr. Rothberg said. And “if doctors don’t feel comfortable or confident about predicting life expectancy, taking comorbid illnesses into account can be helpful, especially for that age range.”
 

Weighing Surveillance Benefits

Surveillance colonoscopy is often recommended post-polypectomy to reduce the risk for CRC. But even in this higher-risk population, those older than 75 years may not benefit.

Recent evidence indicates that those with a history of one or two adenomas less than 1 cm in size have only a slightly (1.3-fold) increased risk for incident CRC — and no significant increased risk for fatal CRC.

Another recent study found that detecting CRC at surveillance colonoscopy was rare among older adults. In surveillance colonoscopies performed among 9601 individuals aged 70-85 years with prior adenomas, 12% had advanced neoplasia detected, and only 0.3% had CRC detected.

Similar rates of advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) were reported in another recent analysis of more than 9800 adults older than 65 years receiving surveillance colonoscopies.

Despite the low rates of polyp and CRC detection, nearly 90% of patients with recommendation information available received advice to return for a future colonoscopy. Even among patients with no polyps or small ones, almost 60% who had life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return.

Although someone with prior adenomas has a higher risk for CRC, that doesn’t tell the whole story for an individual patient, Samir Gupta, MD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of California San Diego, and co-lead of the Cancer Control Program at Moores Cancer Center, told this news organization. For older adults, it’s vital to consider the competing risks and how much time it might take for CRC to develop.

At Digestive Disease Week in May, Dr. Gupta presented new research that looked at cumulative risk among patients aged 75 years and older with prior precancerous polyps vs prior normal colonoscopies. Although those with prior adenomas had a higher risk for CRC overall, their cumulative CRC risk was low — about 0.3% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years. Cumulative CRC deaths were even lower — 0.2% at 5 years and 0.7% at 10 years — while the risk of dying from something other than CRC was 20% at 5 years and 40% at 10 years.

“What this means to me is that patients who are 75 and older should think really carefully about whether they want to do surveillance,” said Dr. Gupta, who coauthored the AGA’s clinical practice update. “Someone who is very healthy and doesn’t have obvious medical problems can look at that risk for developing colon cancer and the risk of dying and make a decision about whether there’s enough concern to go ahead with surveillance.”

Those with competing health priorities, on other hand, should likely concentrate on those instead, he said, and feel reassured that even if they choose not to do surveillance, they’re probably not doing themselves any harm.

“The bottom line is that referring older adults or frail adults for surveillance colonoscopy shouldn’t be a rubber stamp or check-the-box action,” Dr. Gupta said. “We need to think about it carefully and give ourselves — as clinicians and patients — the room to decide that it may not need to take high priority.”
 

What to Tell Patients

Overall, older adults who have had prior colonoscopies, no or low-risk polyps, and low CRC risk will likely face greater risks from the procedure than benefits.

“The more invasive the screening the test, the more dangerous it could be,” Dr. Rothberg noted.

Many patients, however, are open to stopping and often trust their primary care provider in the decision-making process, said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. “But the systems we have in place don’t optimally support that decision-making at the time it matters most.”

For example, at a prior colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist may recommend surveillance again in 5-7 years. But in the interim, the patient could have new medications or develop comorbidities and other health issues. Rather than defer to the gastroenterologist’s recommendations from years ago, clinicians and patients can reassess the pros and cons of screening or surveillance based on current circumstances, Dr. Calderwood said.

“There should be lines of communication and systems of support to allow primary care providers to decide whether it is still needed,” she said.

While some may be ready to stop, other patients are going to continue to want and ask about CRC screening or surveillance, Dr. Rothberg said.

In these instances, communication style matters.

“You don’t want to tell a patient that they’re not going to be screened because they’re not going to live long enough to benefit,” Dr. Rothberg said.

However, steering people toward less invasive tests or telling them it’s important to give other health problems priority may be more sensitive ways to communicate that it’s time to ramp down or halt screening.

“Sometimes when you say you’re going to stop cancer screening, older adults misperceive that you’re giving up on them,” Dr. Gupta said. “We spend 30-40 years driving home the message that prevention and screening are important, and then it feels like we’re taking it away, so we need to find the best way to discuss it and make the choice that’s comfortable for them.”

Dr. Rothberg, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Calderwood disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Zasocitinib, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, at oral doses of ≥ 5 mg led to greater skin clearance than placebo over a period of 12 weeks, in a phase 2b study.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different doses of zasocitinib in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis (mean age, 47 years; 32% women) at 47 centers in the United States and eight centers in Canada. Most (83%) were White, 7% were Black, and 8% were Asian.
• A total of 287 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the four oral doses of zasocitinib (2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg, once daily) or a matched placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week safety monitoring period.
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) from baseline at week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 12, PASI 75 was achieved by 18%, 44%, 68%, and 67% of patients receiving zasocitinib at doses of 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, vs 6% of patients receiving placebo.
• PASI 90 was achieved in 8%, 21%, 45%, and 46% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, and in no patients in the placebo group.
• At week 12, 10%, 27%, 49%, and 52% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, had no or mild disease (a score of 0 or 1) according to the Physician Global Assessment tool vs 4% in the placebo group.
• Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 53%-62% of patients in the zasocitinib groups compared with 44% in the placebo group. The most common were COVID-19, acne/acneiform dermatitis, and diarrhea. There were no reports of major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events, or opportunistic infections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Zasocitinib, an advanced, potent, and highly selective oral TYK2 inhibitor bioengineered to optimize target coverage and functional selectivity, achieved biologic-level efficacy with complete skin clearance observed after only a 12-week treatment period in up to one third of patients, with a low incidence of known tolerability issues and absence of serious toxic effects that are characteristic of [Janus kinase] 1-3 inhibition,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, University of California, Los Angeles, and was published online on August 21, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively small sample size and a short duration. In addition, the inclusion of predominantly White patients may limit the generalizability of findings to a diverse population.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Nimbus Discovery, which includes Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus Lakshmi. Dr. Armstrong’s disclosures included receiving grants and/or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus. Three authors were employees of and reported holding equity, stocks, or shares in Nimbus. Several authors had disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus.

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

TOPLINE:

Zasocitinib, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, at oral doses of ≥ 5 mg led to greater skin clearance than placebo over a period of 12 weeks, in a phase 2b study.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different doses of zasocitinib in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis (mean age, 47 years; 32% women) at 47 centers in the United States and eight centers in Canada. Most (83%) were White, 7% were Black, and 8% were Asian.
• A total of 287 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the four oral doses of zasocitinib (2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg, once daily) or a matched placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week safety monitoring period.
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) from baseline at week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 12, PASI 75 was achieved by 18%, 44%, 68%, and 67% of patients receiving zasocitinib at doses of 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, vs 6% of patients receiving placebo.
• PASI 90 was achieved in 8%, 21%, 45%, and 46% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, and in no patients in the placebo group.
• At week 12, 10%, 27%, 49%, and 52% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, had no or mild disease (a score of 0 or 1) according to the Physician Global Assessment tool vs 4% in the placebo group.
• Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 53%-62% of patients in the zasocitinib groups compared with 44% in the placebo group. The most common were COVID-19, acne/acneiform dermatitis, and diarrhea. There were no reports of major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events, or opportunistic infections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Zasocitinib, an advanced, potent, and highly selective oral TYK2 inhibitor bioengineered to optimize target coverage and functional selectivity, achieved biologic-level efficacy with complete skin clearance observed after only a 12-week treatment period in up to one third of patients, with a low incidence of known tolerability issues and absence of serious toxic effects that are characteristic of [Janus kinase] 1-3 inhibition,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, University of California, Los Angeles, and was published online on August 21, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively small sample size and a short duration. In addition, the inclusion of predominantly White patients may limit the generalizability of findings to a diverse population.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Nimbus Discovery, which includes Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus Lakshmi. Dr. Armstrong’s disclosures included receiving grants and/or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus. Three authors were employees of and reported holding equity, stocks, or shares in Nimbus. Several authors had disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus.

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

TOPLINE:

Zasocitinib, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, at oral doses of ≥ 5 mg led to greater skin clearance than placebo over a period of 12 weeks, in a phase 2b study.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different doses of zasocitinib in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis (mean age, 47 years; 32% women) at 47 centers in the United States and eight centers in Canada. Most (83%) were White, 7% were Black, and 8% were Asian.
• A total of 287 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the four oral doses of zasocitinib (2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg, once daily) or a matched placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week safety monitoring period.
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) from baseline at week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 12, PASI 75 was achieved by 18%, 44%, 68%, and 67% of patients receiving zasocitinib at doses of 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, vs 6% of patients receiving placebo.
• PASI 90 was achieved in 8%, 21%, 45%, and 46% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, and in no patients in the placebo group.
• At week 12, 10%, 27%, 49%, and 52% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, had no or mild disease (a score of 0 or 1) according to the Physician Global Assessment tool vs 4% in the placebo group.
• Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 53%-62% of patients in the zasocitinib groups compared with 44% in the placebo group. The most common were COVID-19, acne/acneiform dermatitis, and diarrhea. There were no reports of major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events, or opportunistic infections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Zasocitinib, an advanced, potent, and highly selective oral TYK2 inhibitor bioengineered to optimize target coverage and functional selectivity, achieved biologic-level efficacy with complete skin clearance observed after only a 12-week treatment period in up to one third of patients, with a low incidence of known tolerability issues and absence of serious toxic effects that are characteristic of [Janus kinase] 1-3 inhibition,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, University of California, Los Angeles, and was published online on August 21, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively small sample size and a short duration. In addition, the inclusion of predominantly White patients may limit the generalizability of findings to a diverse population.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Nimbus Discovery, which includes Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus Lakshmi. Dr. Armstrong’s disclosures included receiving grants and/or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus. Three authors were employees of and reported holding equity, stocks, or shares in Nimbus. Several authors had disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) and the use of antibiotics for prevention are substantial among women in Wales, particularly among those over the age of 57 years. A high level of resistance to two recommended antibiotics was observed, suggesting that more frequent urine cultures could better guide antibiotic selection for treatment and prophylaxis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a large databank of patients in Wales to describe the characteristics and urine profiles of women with rUTIs between 2010 and 2022.
• They created two cohorts: One with 92,213 women (median age, 60 years) who experienced rUTIs, defined as two or more acute episodes within 6 months or three or more acute episodes within 12 months.
• Another cohort comprised of 26,862 women (median age, 71 years) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, which was defined as receiving three or more consecutive prescriptions of the same UTI-specific antibiotic (trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, or cefalexin), with intervals of 21-56 days between prescriptions.
• Urine culture results in the 12 months before a rUTI diagnosis and 18 months before prophylactic antibiotic initiation and all urine culture results within 7 days of an acute UTI were analyzed to assess antibiotic resistance patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 6% of women had rUTIs, 1.7% of which were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics with proportions increasing sharply after age 57.
• Nearly half of the women (49%) who were prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic qualified as having rUTIs in the 18 months before initiation.
• This study showed that 80.8% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result documented in the 12 months preceding the diagnosis.
• More than half (64%) of the women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result documented before starting treatment, and 18% of those prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to the antibiotic.

IN PRACTICE:

“More frequent urine cultures in the workup of rUTI diagnosis and prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choice,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leigh Sanyaolu, BSc (Hons), MRCS, MRCGP, PGDip, a general practitioner from the Division of Population Medicine and PRIME Centre Wales at Cardiff University in Cardiff, and was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on electronic health records may have led to coding errors and missing data. The diagnosis of UTIs may have been difficult in older women with increased frailty as they can have fewer specific symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria, which can be misdiagnosed as a UTI.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Health and Care Research Wales. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) and the use of antibiotics for prevention are substantial among women in Wales, particularly among those over the age of 57 years. A high level of resistance to two recommended antibiotics was observed, suggesting that more frequent urine cultures could better guide antibiotic selection for treatment and prophylaxis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a large databank of patients in Wales to describe the characteristics and urine profiles of women with rUTIs between 2010 and 2022.
• They created two cohorts: One with 92,213 women (median age, 60 years) who experienced rUTIs, defined as two or more acute episodes within 6 months or three or more acute episodes within 12 months.
• Another cohort comprised of 26,862 women (median age, 71 years) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, which was defined as receiving three or more consecutive prescriptions of the same UTI-specific antibiotic (trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, or cefalexin), with intervals of 21-56 days between prescriptions.
• Urine culture results in the 12 months before a rUTI diagnosis and 18 months before prophylactic antibiotic initiation and all urine culture results within 7 days of an acute UTI were analyzed to assess antibiotic resistance patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 6% of women had rUTIs, 1.7% of which were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics with proportions increasing sharply after age 57.
• Nearly half of the women (49%) who were prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic qualified as having rUTIs in the 18 months before initiation.
• This study showed that 80.8% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result documented in the 12 months preceding the diagnosis.
• More than half (64%) of the women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result documented before starting treatment, and 18% of those prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to the antibiotic.

IN PRACTICE:

“More frequent urine cultures in the workup of rUTI diagnosis and prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choice,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leigh Sanyaolu, BSc (Hons), MRCS, MRCGP, PGDip, a general practitioner from the Division of Population Medicine and PRIME Centre Wales at Cardiff University in Cardiff, and was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on electronic health records may have led to coding errors and missing data. The diagnosis of UTIs may have been difficult in older women with increased frailty as they can have fewer specific symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria, which can be misdiagnosed as a UTI.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Health and Care Research Wales. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) and the use of antibiotics for prevention are substantial among women in Wales, particularly among those over the age of 57 years. A high level of resistance to two recommended antibiotics was observed, suggesting that more frequent urine cultures could better guide antibiotic selection for treatment and prophylaxis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a large databank of patients in Wales to describe the characteristics and urine profiles of women with rUTIs between 2010 and 2022.
• They created two cohorts: One with 92,213 women (median age, 60 years) who experienced rUTIs, defined as two or more acute episodes within 6 months or three or more acute episodes within 12 months.
• Another cohort comprised of 26,862 women (median age, 71 years) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, which was defined as receiving three or more consecutive prescriptions of the same UTI-specific antibiotic (trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, or cefalexin), with intervals of 21-56 days between prescriptions.
• Urine culture results in the 12 months before a rUTI diagnosis and 18 months before prophylactic antibiotic initiation and all urine culture results within 7 days of an acute UTI were analyzed to assess antibiotic resistance patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 6% of women had rUTIs, 1.7% of which were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics with proportions increasing sharply after age 57.
• Nearly half of the women (49%) who were prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic qualified as having rUTIs in the 18 months before initiation.
• This study showed that 80.8% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result documented in the 12 months preceding the diagnosis.
• More than half (64%) of the women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result documented before starting treatment, and 18% of those prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to the antibiotic.

IN PRACTICE:

“More frequent urine cultures in the workup of rUTI diagnosis and prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choice,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leigh Sanyaolu, BSc (Hons), MRCS, MRCGP, PGDip, a general practitioner from the Division of Population Medicine and PRIME Centre Wales at Cardiff University in Cardiff, and was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on electronic health records may have led to coding errors and missing data. The diagnosis of UTIs may have been difficult in older women with increased frailty as they can have fewer specific symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria, which can be misdiagnosed as a UTI.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Health and Care Research Wales. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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