Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0>
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0>
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0>
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), used for diabetes or obesity, are associated with a significantly lower quality of bowel preparation and a greater need for repeat colonoscopy, new research suggests.

“We began observing inadequate bowel preparation in our patients undergoing colonoscopy who were on GLP-1 RAs, which raised questions, especially given the association between these medications and delays in intestinal transit,” study investigator Eric. J. Vargas, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. The team decided to investigate.

The “most surprising finding” was the “notably higher rate of inadequate bowel preparation, which necessitates a repeat colonoscopy within 12 months to ensure adequate screening and surveillance for colorectal cancers,” he said. “Specifically, for every 14 patients treated with GLP-1 RAs, one patient would require a repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal preparation.”

In light of the findings, “clinicians should consider patients on GLP-1 RAs to be a population at risk for poor quality of bowel preparation,” he said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Low prep scores

The investigators analyzed a cohort of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at Mayo Clinic between 2021 and 2022. Patients taking any GLP-1 RA for diabetes or obesity at the time of colonoscopy were defined as “cases,” and those who were prescribed a GLP-1 RA at one point but had not taken it within 3 months of colonoscopy were controls.

The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess bowel preparation quality.

The study included 446 patients: 265 (59%) taking a GLP-1 RA and 181 controls (41%). Overall, the average age was 59 years, about 54% were women, and 91% were White. Among those taking a GLP-1 RA, 86% had diabetes, as did 74% of controls.

Of patients on a GLP-1 RA, 48.8% took subcutaneous semaglutide, 3.1% took oral semaglutide, 34.6% took dulaglutide, 11% took liraglutide, and very small percentages took tirzepatide or exenatide.

There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diabetes diagnosis.

After diabetes was controlled for, the mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls than in GLP-1 RA recipients (7.5 vs. 7), and the percentage of patients with a total BBPS score less than 5 was significantly higher in the GLP-1 RA group than in the control group (15.5% vs. 6.6%).

In a secondary analysis of those with diabetes, the proportion of patients with a BBPS score less than or equal to 1 in any segment was higher in those taking a GLP-1 RA than in controls (24.9% vs. 13.3%).

The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy owing to inadequate bowel prep was higher among those taking a GLP-1 RA than among controls (18.9% vs. 11.1%). This corresponded to a number needed to harm of 14.

“GLP-1 RAs are increasingly used for the treatment of diabetes and obesity and have been demonstrated to reduce gastrointestinal motility,” the authors write. “Our data signal that the use of these medications in this patient population may be an additional factor in suboptimal bowel preparation.”

Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, its focus on a single health system with a large majority of non-Hispanic White patients, and lack of data on diabetic complications and the use of insulin – all of which “necessitate caution in interpreting the findings,” the authors write.
 

Research ‘evolving rapidly’

“We will continue gathering more information on colonoscopy preparations and GLP-1 RA medication use, and whether the newer type 2 diabetes medications have a similar effect,” Dr. Vargas said. “The newer and upcoming medications are double and/or triple agonists, and it remains to be determined if these have a similar effect on gastric transit times.”

The recent lowering of the recommended colorectal cancer screening age for average-risk individuals to 45 combined with increasing use of GLP-1 RAs make it important to minimize repeat colonoscopies, he added.

“In the absence of specific guidance on timing of periprocedural discontinuation of GLP-1 RAs, clinicians can enhance counseling and educational efforts in this population,” Dr. Vargas suggested. They can also consider interventions such as “extending bowel preparation regimens, issuing a clear liquid diet recommendation 48-72 hours before colonoscopy, and nurse education visits on colonoscopy preparation.”

Commenting on the study, David A. Greenwald, MD, director of clinical gastroenterology and endoscopy at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, noted the potential confounding in a retrospective study, as well as the relatively small sample size. “Nonetheless, the findings make sense and are important to guide clinical decision-making,” he told this news organization.

Gastric emptying with GLP-1 RAs can lead to retained fluid and food in the stomach, which increase the risk for aspiration at endoscopy, he said.

“We are concerned about that primarily for upper endoscopy but have seen vomiting and aspiration occur during colonoscopy in patients who have been using [these] medications,” Dr. Greenwald said. It’s reasonable to postulate that GLP-1 RAs could delay passage of colonoscopy preps through the gastrointestinal tract, which would affect the outcome of prep, he added.

“Research around GLP-1 agonist use and endoscopy is evolving rapidly, and we hope to have data-driven guidance soon on whether these agents need to be held in the peri-endoscopic period, and if so, for how long,” Dr. Greenwald noted. “At the moment, guidance has been published but is very much driven by expert opinion and limited studies.”

The study received no financial support. Dr. Vargas and Dr. Greenwald report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), used for diabetes or obesity, are associated with a significantly lower quality of bowel preparation and a greater need for repeat colonoscopy, new research suggests.

“We began observing inadequate bowel preparation in our patients undergoing colonoscopy who were on GLP-1 RAs, which raised questions, especially given the association between these medications and delays in intestinal transit,” study investigator Eric. J. Vargas, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. The team decided to investigate.

The “most surprising finding” was the “notably higher rate of inadequate bowel preparation, which necessitates a repeat colonoscopy within 12 months to ensure adequate screening and surveillance for colorectal cancers,” he said. “Specifically, for every 14 patients treated with GLP-1 RAs, one patient would require a repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal preparation.”

In light of the findings, “clinicians should consider patients on GLP-1 RAs to be a population at risk for poor quality of bowel preparation,” he said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Low prep scores

The investigators analyzed a cohort of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at Mayo Clinic between 2021 and 2022. Patients taking any GLP-1 RA for diabetes or obesity at the time of colonoscopy were defined as “cases,” and those who were prescribed a GLP-1 RA at one point but had not taken it within 3 months of colonoscopy were controls.

The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess bowel preparation quality.

The study included 446 patients: 265 (59%) taking a GLP-1 RA and 181 controls (41%). Overall, the average age was 59 years, about 54% were women, and 91% were White. Among those taking a GLP-1 RA, 86% had diabetes, as did 74% of controls.

Of patients on a GLP-1 RA, 48.8% took subcutaneous semaglutide, 3.1% took oral semaglutide, 34.6% took dulaglutide, 11% took liraglutide, and very small percentages took tirzepatide or exenatide.

There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diabetes diagnosis.

After diabetes was controlled for, the mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls than in GLP-1 RA recipients (7.5 vs. 7), and the percentage of patients with a total BBPS score less than 5 was significantly higher in the GLP-1 RA group than in the control group (15.5% vs. 6.6%).

In a secondary analysis of those with diabetes, the proportion of patients with a BBPS score less than or equal to 1 in any segment was higher in those taking a GLP-1 RA than in controls (24.9% vs. 13.3%).

The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy owing to inadequate bowel prep was higher among those taking a GLP-1 RA than among controls (18.9% vs. 11.1%). This corresponded to a number needed to harm of 14.

“GLP-1 RAs are increasingly used for the treatment of diabetes and obesity and have been demonstrated to reduce gastrointestinal motility,” the authors write. “Our data signal that the use of these medications in this patient population may be an additional factor in suboptimal bowel preparation.”

Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, its focus on a single health system with a large majority of non-Hispanic White patients, and lack of data on diabetic complications and the use of insulin – all of which “necessitate caution in interpreting the findings,” the authors write.
 

Research ‘evolving rapidly’

“We will continue gathering more information on colonoscopy preparations and GLP-1 RA medication use, and whether the newer type 2 diabetes medications have a similar effect,” Dr. Vargas said. “The newer and upcoming medications are double and/or triple agonists, and it remains to be determined if these have a similar effect on gastric transit times.”

The recent lowering of the recommended colorectal cancer screening age for average-risk individuals to 45 combined with increasing use of GLP-1 RAs make it important to minimize repeat colonoscopies, he added.

“In the absence of specific guidance on timing of periprocedural discontinuation of GLP-1 RAs, clinicians can enhance counseling and educational efforts in this population,” Dr. Vargas suggested. They can also consider interventions such as “extending bowel preparation regimens, issuing a clear liquid diet recommendation 48-72 hours before colonoscopy, and nurse education visits on colonoscopy preparation.”

Commenting on the study, David A. Greenwald, MD, director of clinical gastroenterology and endoscopy at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, noted the potential confounding in a retrospective study, as well as the relatively small sample size. “Nonetheless, the findings make sense and are important to guide clinical decision-making,” he told this news organization.

Gastric emptying with GLP-1 RAs can lead to retained fluid and food in the stomach, which increase the risk for aspiration at endoscopy, he said.

“We are concerned about that primarily for upper endoscopy but have seen vomiting and aspiration occur during colonoscopy in patients who have been using [these] medications,” Dr. Greenwald said. It’s reasonable to postulate that GLP-1 RAs could delay passage of colonoscopy preps through the gastrointestinal tract, which would affect the outcome of prep, he added.

“Research around GLP-1 agonist use and endoscopy is evolving rapidly, and we hope to have data-driven guidance soon on whether these agents need to be held in the peri-endoscopic period, and if so, for how long,” Dr. Greenwald noted. “At the moment, guidance has been published but is very much driven by expert opinion and limited studies.”

The study received no financial support. Dr. Vargas and Dr. Greenwald report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), used for diabetes or obesity, are associated with a significantly lower quality of bowel preparation and a greater need for repeat colonoscopy, new research suggests.

“We began observing inadequate bowel preparation in our patients undergoing colonoscopy who were on GLP-1 RAs, which raised questions, especially given the association between these medications and delays in intestinal transit,” study investigator Eric. J. Vargas, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. The team decided to investigate.

The “most surprising finding” was the “notably higher rate of inadequate bowel preparation, which necessitates a repeat colonoscopy within 12 months to ensure adequate screening and surveillance for colorectal cancers,” he said. “Specifically, for every 14 patients treated with GLP-1 RAs, one patient would require a repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal preparation.”

In light of the findings, “clinicians should consider patients on GLP-1 RAs to be a population at risk for poor quality of bowel preparation,” he said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Low prep scores

The investigators analyzed a cohort of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at Mayo Clinic between 2021 and 2022. Patients taking any GLP-1 RA for diabetes or obesity at the time of colonoscopy were defined as “cases,” and those who were prescribed a GLP-1 RA at one point but had not taken it within 3 months of colonoscopy were controls.

The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess bowel preparation quality.

The study included 446 patients: 265 (59%) taking a GLP-1 RA and 181 controls (41%). Overall, the average age was 59 years, about 54% were women, and 91% were White. Among those taking a GLP-1 RA, 86% had diabetes, as did 74% of controls.

Of patients on a GLP-1 RA, 48.8% took subcutaneous semaglutide, 3.1% took oral semaglutide, 34.6% took dulaglutide, 11% took liraglutide, and very small percentages took tirzepatide or exenatide.

There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diabetes diagnosis.

After diabetes was controlled for, the mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls than in GLP-1 RA recipients (7.5 vs. 7), and the percentage of patients with a total BBPS score less than 5 was significantly higher in the GLP-1 RA group than in the control group (15.5% vs. 6.6%).

In a secondary analysis of those with diabetes, the proportion of patients with a BBPS score less than or equal to 1 in any segment was higher in those taking a GLP-1 RA than in controls (24.9% vs. 13.3%).

The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy owing to inadequate bowel prep was higher among those taking a GLP-1 RA than among controls (18.9% vs. 11.1%). This corresponded to a number needed to harm of 14.

“GLP-1 RAs are increasingly used for the treatment of diabetes and obesity and have been demonstrated to reduce gastrointestinal motility,” the authors write. “Our data signal that the use of these medications in this patient population may be an additional factor in suboptimal bowel preparation.”

Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, its focus on a single health system with a large majority of non-Hispanic White patients, and lack of data on diabetic complications and the use of insulin – all of which “necessitate caution in interpreting the findings,” the authors write.
 

Research ‘evolving rapidly’

“We will continue gathering more information on colonoscopy preparations and GLP-1 RA medication use, and whether the newer type 2 diabetes medications have a similar effect,” Dr. Vargas said. “The newer and upcoming medications are double and/or triple agonists, and it remains to be determined if these have a similar effect on gastric transit times.”

The recent lowering of the recommended colorectal cancer screening age for average-risk individuals to 45 combined with increasing use of GLP-1 RAs make it important to minimize repeat colonoscopies, he added.

“In the absence of specific guidance on timing of periprocedural discontinuation of GLP-1 RAs, clinicians can enhance counseling and educational efforts in this population,” Dr. Vargas suggested. They can also consider interventions such as “extending bowel preparation regimens, issuing a clear liquid diet recommendation 48-72 hours before colonoscopy, and nurse education visits on colonoscopy preparation.”

Commenting on the study, David A. Greenwald, MD, director of clinical gastroenterology and endoscopy at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, noted the potential confounding in a retrospective study, as well as the relatively small sample size. “Nonetheless, the findings make sense and are important to guide clinical decision-making,” he told this news organization.

Gastric emptying with GLP-1 RAs can lead to retained fluid and food in the stomach, which increase the risk for aspiration at endoscopy, he said.

“We are concerned about that primarily for upper endoscopy but have seen vomiting and aspiration occur during colonoscopy in patients who have been using [these] medications,” Dr. Greenwald said. It’s reasonable to postulate that GLP-1 RAs could delay passage of colonoscopy preps through the gastrointestinal tract, which would affect the outcome of prep, he added.

“Research around GLP-1 agonist use and endoscopy is evolving rapidly, and we hope to have data-driven guidance soon on whether these agents need to be held in the peri-endoscopic period, and if so, for how long,” Dr. Greenwald noted. “At the moment, guidance has been published but is very much driven by expert opinion and limited studies.”

The study received no financial support. Dr. Vargas and Dr. Greenwald report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Schlösser and colleagues provide a real-world report of 48 patients treated with upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis, many of whom had previously been treated with cyclosporine and dupilumab. The upbeat authors concluded, "Overall, adverse events were mostly well tolerated." Being a cynical, glass-is-half-empty kind of person, I wondered what that meant. Most patients (56%) reported adverse events, the most common being acne (25% of patients treated), nausea (13%), respiratory tract infections (10%), and herpes virus (8%). The herpes virus signal is not just a bit of a concern for me, but it also makes it hard for me to convince patients to take a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, as when I even mention herpes, patients reply, often rather emphatically, "I don't want herpes!" I'll be encouraging patients to get vaccinated for shingles when starting them on JAK inhibitors.

Dupilumab seems to work great in real-life use. In Martinez-Cabriales and colleagues' study of 62 children age < 12 with atopic dermatitis, only four discontinued the treatment. One of these was a nonresponder who took only one injection and had flushing, and one of the other three discontinued because their skin had completely cleared.

When I saw the title of Rand and colleagues' article, "Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Long-Term Efficacy Maintenance and Adverse Event Rates of Lebrikizumab Versus Dupilumab in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis," I thought, Oh, this is great — a head-to-head, long-term trial comparing lebrikizumab and dupilumab. I was disappointed to find that this was simply a retrospective analysis of data reported from different studies. The study found little difference in efficacy or safety of the two drugs. Both seem to be excellent medications for atopic dermatitis.

Here's another study (Zhou et al) that reports possible increased risk for a comorbidity (cognitive dysfunction) associated with atopic dermatitis. This study reports that there is an elevated hazard ratio that is statistically significant; the article fails to report what the increased absolute risk is for cognitive dysfunction associated with atopic dermatitis. My guess is that it is small and probably clinically unimportant. The hazard ratio for developing dementia was 1.16. It's hard to know how that translates into absolute risk, but my brilliant friend and former partner, Dr Alan Fleischer, once told me that the odds ratio for smoking and lung cancer is something like 100; the hazard ratio is in the range of 20. On the basis of a hazard ratio of 1.16, I don't think patients with atopic dermatitis need to be any more worried about dementia than those without. (Though, to be honest, I think we can all be worried about developing dementia.)

In this tour de force analysis of 83 trials with over 20,000 participants, Drucker and colleagues determined that high doses of abrocitinib and upadacitinib are more effective than even dupilumab for atopic dermatitis. The standard doses of these JAK inhibitors were similar in efficacy to dupilumab. I think it's safe to say that JAK inhibitors are, at least at their high doses, more effective than dupilumab, but safety remains a critical factor in treatment decision-making. I think JAK inhibitors are a great option for patients who need the most effective treatment or who fail to respond to dupilumab.

The title of the article by Oh and colleagues, "Increased Risk of Renal Malignancy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis," seems like it could terrify patients. The study involved an analysis of an enormous number of people, including tens of thousands with atopic dermatitis and millions of controls. The investigators did find statistically significant differences in the rate of malignancy. The rate of renal cancer was about 1.6 per 10,000 person-years for people without atopic dermatitis or people with mild atopic dermatitis; the rate was about 2.5 per 10,000 people for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. While the rate of renal cancer was statistically significantly higher in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (ie, the higher rate was unlikely to be occurring due to chance alone), these patients have very little risk for renal malignancy. The authors' conclusion that regular checkups for renal malignancy are recommended for patients with severe atopic dermatitis seems unnecessary to me.

Schlösser and colleagues provide a real-world report of 48 patients treated with upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis, many of whom had previously been treated with cyclosporine and dupilumab. The upbeat authors concluded, "Overall, adverse events were mostly well tolerated." Being a cynical, glass-is-half-empty kind of person, I wondered what that meant. Most patients (56%) reported adverse events, the most common being acne (25% of patients treated), nausea (13%), respiratory tract infections (10%), and herpes virus (8%). The herpes virus signal is not just a bit of a concern for me, but it also makes it hard for me to convince patients to take a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, as when I even mention herpes, patients reply, often rather emphatically, "I don't want herpes!" I'll be encouraging patients to get vaccinated for shingles when starting them on JAK inhibitors.

Dupilumab seems to work great in real-life use. In Martinez-Cabriales and colleagues' study of 62 children age < 12 with atopic dermatitis, only four discontinued the treatment. One of these was a nonresponder who took only one injection and had flushing, and one of the other three discontinued because their skin had completely cleared.

When I saw the title of Rand and colleagues' article, "Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Long-Term Efficacy Maintenance and Adverse Event Rates of Lebrikizumab Versus Dupilumab in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis," I thought, Oh, this is great — a head-to-head, long-term trial comparing lebrikizumab and dupilumab. I was disappointed to find that this was simply a retrospective analysis of data reported from different studies. The study found little difference in efficacy or safety of the two drugs. Both seem to be excellent medications for atopic dermatitis.

Here's another study (Zhou et al) that reports possible increased risk for a comorbidity (cognitive dysfunction) associated with atopic dermatitis. This study reports that there is an elevated hazard ratio that is statistically significant; the article fails to report what the increased absolute risk is for cognitive dysfunction associated with atopic dermatitis. My guess is that it is small and probably clinically unimportant. The hazard ratio for developing dementia was 1.16. It's hard to know how that translates into absolute risk, but my brilliant friend and former partner, Dr Alan Fleischer, once told me that the odds ratio for smoking and lung cancer is something like 100; the hazard ratio is in the range of 20. On the basis of a hazard ratio of 1.16, I don't think patients with atopic dermatitis need to be any more worried about dementia than those without. (Though, to be honest, I think we can all be worried about developing dementia.)

In this tour de force analysis of 83 trials with over 20,000 participants, Drucker and colleagues determined that high doses of abrocitinib and upadacitinib are more effective than even dupilumab for atopic dermatitis. The standard doses of these JAK inhibitors were similar in efficacy to dupilumab. I think it's safe to say that JAK inhibitors are, at least at their high doses, more effective than dupilumab, but safety remains a critical factor in treatment decision-making. I think JAK inhibitors are a great option for patients who need the most effective treatment or who fail to respond to dupilumab.

The title of the article by Oh and colleagues, "Increased Risk of Renal Malignancy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis," seems like it could terrify patients. The study involved an analysis of an enormous number of people, including tens of thousands with atopic dermatitis and millions of controls. The investigators did find statistically significant differences in the rate of malignancy. The rate of renal cancer was about 1.6 per 10,000 person-years for people without atopic dermatitis or people with mild atopic dermatitis; the rate was about 2.5 per 10,000 people for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. While the rate of renal cancer was statistically significantly higher in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (ie, the higher rate was unlikely to be occurring due to chance alone), these patients have very little risk for renal malignancy. The authors' conclusion that regular checkups for renal malignancy are recommended for patients with severe atopic dermatitis seems unnecessary to me.

Schlösser and colleagues provide a real-world report of 48 patients treated with upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis, many of whom had previously been treated with cyclosporine and dupilumab. The upbeat authors concluded, "Overall, adverse events were mostly well tolerated." Being a cynical, glass-is-half-empty kind of person, I wondered what that meant. Most patients (56%) reported adverse events, the most common being acne (25% of patients treated), nausea (13%), respiratory tract infections (10%), and herpes virus (8%). The herpes virus signal is not just a bit of a concern for me, but it also makes it hard for me to convince patients to take a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, as when I even mention herpes, patients reply, often rather emphatically, "I don't want herpes!" I'll be encouraging patients to get vaccinated for shingles when starting them on JAK inhibitors.

Dupilumab seems to work great in real-life use. In Martinez-Cabriales and colleagues' study of 62 children age < 12 with atopic dermatitis, only four discontinued the treatment. One of these was a nonresponder who took only one injection and had flushing, and one of the other three discontinued because their skin had completely cleared.

When I saw the title of Rand and colleagues' article, "Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Long-Term Efficacy Maintenance and Adverse Event Rates of Lebrikizumab Versus Dupilumab in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis," I thought, Oh, this is great — a head-to-head, long-term trial comparing lebrikizumab and dupilumab. I was disappointed to find that this was simply a retrospective analysis of data reported from different studies. The study found little difference in efficacy or safety of the two drugs. Both seem to be excellent medications for atopic dermatitis.

Here's another study (Zhou et al) that reports possible increased risk for a comorbidity (cognitive dysfunction) associated with atopic dermatitis. This study reports that there is an elevated hazard ratio that is statistically significant; the article fails to report what the increased absolute risk is for cognitive dysfunction associated with atopic dermatitis. My guess is that it is small and probably clinically unimportant. The hazard ratio for developing dementia was 1.16. It's hard to know how that translates into absolute risk, but my brilliant friend and former partner, Dr Alan Fleischer, once told me that the odds ratio for smoking and lung cancer is something like 100; the hazard ratio is in the range of 20. On the basis of a hazard ratio of 1.16, I don't think patients with atopic dermatitis need to be any more worried about dementia than those without. (Though, to be honest, I think we can all be worried about developing dementia.)

In this tour de force analysis of 83 trials with over 20,000 participants, Drucker and colleagues determined that high doses of abrocitinib and upadacitinib are more effective than even dupilumab for atopic dermatitis. The standard doses of these JAK inhibitors were similar in efficacy to dupilumab. I think it's safe to say that JAK inhibitors are, at least at their high doses, more effective than dupilumab, but safety remains a critical factor in treatment decision-making. I think JAK inhibitors are a great option for patients who need the most effective treatment or who fail to respond to dupilumab.

The title of the article by Oh and colleagues, "Increased Risk of Renal Malignancy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis," seems like it could terrify patients. The study involved an analysis of an enormous number of people, including tens of thousands with atopic dermatitis and millions of controls. The investigators did find statistically significant differences in the rate of malignancy. The rate of renal cancer was about 1.6 per 10,000 person-years for people without atopic dermatitis or people with mild atopic dermatitis; the rate was about 2.5 per 10,000 people for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. While the rate of renal cancer was statistically significantly higher in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (ie, the higher rate was unlikely to be occurring due to chance alone), these patients have very little risk for renal malignancy. The authors' conclusion that regular checkups for renal malignancy are recommended for patients with severe atopic dermatitis seems unnecessary to me.

Telehealth has been a boon for modern-day patients, allowing people who might have difficulty accessing in-person appointments to continue seeing their physicians. But how many patients actually follow through on their physician’s recommendations afterward?

A new study suggests that many patients don’t complete recommended diagnostic tests or specialist referrals after appointments with their primary care physicians, especially when those appointments take place via telehealth.

Investigators retrospectively examined test and referral orders for more than 4,000 patients to see how many complied with recommendations to have a colonoscopy, consult a dermatologist for a suspicious skin lesion, or undergo a cardiac stress test.

Completion of a recommended test or specialty referral was termed “diagnostic loop closure.” In particular, the researchers wanted to compare loop closure after telehealth versus in-person visits.

Rates of loop closure were low across all visit modalities but were lower for tests and referrals ordered during telehealth visits, compared with in-person visits – especially for colonoscopies.

“The take-home message for practicing clinicians is that they should be especially aware of follow-up for tests or referrals ordered during telehealth visits,” said corresponding author Maëlys Amat, MD, MBA, a primary care physician at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

The study was published online on in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Unintended side effects’

“Diagnostic errors present a huge safety concern, impacting many patient lives and costing the health care system billions of dollars, said Dr. Amat, who is also an instructor at Harvard Medical School.

“Telehealth utilization increased rapidly during the COVID pandemic, and although there are clear benefits to utilizing telehealth, our team sought to investigate unintended side effects of this technology and highlight opportunities for improvement,” she said.

To investigate the question, the researchers reviewed medical records of 4,113 patients, with a mean age of 59 years, at two Boston-based primary care sites: an urban hospital–based primary care practice and an affiliated community health center.

Orders for tests or referrals in both centers were placed electronically through the medical record. During an in-person visit, the patient was handed a form with a phone number to call to schedule the test or referral. Patients with limited English proficiency or complex needs may have received help with the scheduling the referral during check-out.

For telehealth visits, the clinician gave the patient the phone number to call to schedule the test or referral during the visit itself. In all scenarios, patients did not receive communication after the visit reminding them about the referral or test.

A loop was considered “closed” if the orders were completed within 365 days, 90 days, or 45 days for colonoscopy, dermatology visits, or cardiac stress testing, respectively.

Of the tests, 52.4% were ordered during an in-person visit, 27.8% were ordered during a telehealth visit, and 19.7% were ordered without a visit.

Tracking systems, virtual checkout

Fewer than half of the orders (42.6%) placed during a telehealth visit were completed within the designated time frame, compared with 58.4% of the orders placed during an in-person visit and 57.4% placed without a visit.

Patients who had telehealth visits were roughly half as likely as those who had in-person visits to close the loop on high-risk tests and referrals, even in an analysis that adjusted for test type, patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, clinical site, clinician type, and patient engagement (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.64).

Only 39.8% of colonoscopy referrals ordered during a telehealth visit were completed during the 365-day time period, compared with 56.9% ordered during an in-person visit and 56.7% ordered without a visit.

Follow-through with dermatology referrals within 90 days was roughly the same across all types of visits (63.1% for telehealth, 61.5% for in-person, and 62.9% for no visit). No significant differences were found between telehealth and in-person visits or orders placed without a visit.

Although patients seen via telehealth were less likely than those seen in person to follow through on cardiac stress tests within the 45-day window (59.1% vs. 63.2%), this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

“Ideally, clinicians would implement automatic tracking systems to help ensure that an ordered test or referral is completed,” Dr. Amat commented. “However, if these systems aren’t yet in place, we strongly encourage clinicians to create their own work flows for tracking tests to completion.”

Additionally, “clinicians should consider implementing a virtual checkout system, similar to what is done during in-person visits, to help patients better understand recommended next steps,” she continued.

Other potentially helpful ways to improve loop closure include automatic tracking for outstanding tests, interventions such as telephone outreach to patients, automated text and email reminders, and the use of referral managers – especially in remote, rural areas or for “disadvantaged patients with limited health care access and literacy.”
 

Education is key

Kisha Davis, MD, MPH, member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview that being able to see a provider virtually can make the difference between a person receiving or not receiving medical care. She regards telehealth as another tool in the toolkit her practice offers to provide comprehensive health care.

Dr. Davis, a family physician in Gaithersburg, Md., who wasn’t involved with the study, described a patient with hypertension who was an Uber driver. “During the pandemic, Uber rides were down, and he couldn›t afford to pass up any opportunities, so he pulled over to the side of the road after one of his rides, did his telehealth visit, reviewed his medications, and went on to his next ride.”

The key is to make sure that patients receive adequate follow-up from the office, which Dr. Davis arranged for this patient.

She noted that telehealth “is best done if there’s an established physician-patient relationship but harder to accomplish successfully if you’ve only met the patient on telehealth and never in person.”

The study didn’t specify whether the physicians had an established relationship with their patients.

During the checkout process after an in-person appointment, patients often receive a sheet of paper with the follow-up referrals. “I can see where patients are less likely to follow through if they don’t have someone handing them that paper,” she said.

In her practice, patients’ charts are color-coded “to keep track and make sure it’s not just the ‘squeaky wheels’ that get all the attention,” she said. “The onus is on the physician and the practice, in today’s world of value-based care, to make sure that patients who don’t come into the office are getting the care they need.”

This is facilitated by a “system of care coordination” in which the office team – such as a nurse or medical assistant – follows up with patients to see if they’ve “gotten everything done without barriers,” Dr. Davis said. “Did they have trouble filling that prescription? Did they have difficulty with the referral? Or do they not think it’s necessary – for example, a patient might not go to physical therapy because the injury has improved.”

Dr. Davis wasn’t surprised that patients were less likely to close the loop for colonoscopies compared with seeking out a stress test or treatment for skin lesions.

“People who have a skin lesion may be concerned about their appearance or about skin cancer, and people who need a stress test may have had cardiac symptoms or be worried about their heart.” But a routine screening such as a colonoscopy may not mobilize the patient’s concern to the same degree.

“Additionally, a colonoscopy has an ‘ick factor,’ so there aren’t a whole lot of people who are jumping to have the procedure done.” She suggested considering newer FDA-approved stool tests to screen for colon cancer.

Dr. Amat and Dr. Davis both emphasized that educating patients – both during and after the visit – and making sure they understand the importance of their referral for tests or specialists referrals are key to ensuring that they follow through on the recommendations.

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Amat was supported by the Arnold Tofias and Leo Condakes Quality Scholarship Program. Dr. Amat declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Davis is the chief health officer for Montgomery County in Maryland.

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

Telehealth has been a boon for modern-day patients, allowing people who might have difficulty accessing in-person appointments to continue seeing their physicians. But how many patients actually follow through on their physician’s recommendations afterward?

A new study suggests that many patients don’t complete recommended diagnostic tests or specialist referrals after appointments with their primary care physicians, especially when those appointments take place via telehealth.

Investigators retrospectively examined test and referral orders for more than 4,000 patients to see how many complied with recommendations to have a colonoscopy, consult a dermatologist for a suspicious skin lesion, or undergo a cardiac stress test.

Completion of a recommended test or specialty referral was termed “diagnostic loop closure.” In particular, the researchers wanted to compare loop closure after telehealth versus in-person visits.

Rates of loop closure were low across all visit modalities but were lower for tests and referrals ordered during telehealth visits, compared with in-person visits – especially for colonoscopies.

“The take-home message for practicing clinicians is that they should be especially aware of follow-up for tests or referrals ordered during telehealth visits,” said corresponding author Maëlys Amat, MD, MBA, a primary care physician at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

The study was published online on in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Unintended side effects’

“Diagnostic errors present a huge safety concern, impacting many patient lives and costing the health care system billions of dollars, said Dr. Amat, who is also an instructor at Harvard Medical School.

“Telehealth utilization increased rapidly during the COVID pandemic, and although there are clear benefits to utilizing telehealth, our team sought to investigate unintended side effects of this technology and highlight opportunities for improvement,” she said.

To investigate the question, the researchers reviewed medical records of 4,113 patients, with a mean age of 59 years, at two Boston-based primary care sites: an urban hospital–based primary care practice and an affiliated community health center.

Orders for tests or referrals in both centers were placed electronically through the medical record. During an in-person visit, the patient was handed a form with a phone number to call to schedule the test or referral. Patients with limited English proficiency or complex needs may have received help with the scheduling the referral during check-out.

For telehealth visits, the clinician gave the patient the phone number to call to schedule the test or referral during the visit itself. In all scenarios, patients did not receive communication after the visit reminding them about the referral or test.

A loop was considered “closed” if the orders were completed within 365 days, 90 days, or 45 days for colonoscopy, dermatology visits, or cardiac stress testing, respectively.

Of the tests, 52.4% were ordered during an in-person visit, 27.8% were ordered during a telehealth visit, and 19.7% were ordered without a visit.

Tracking systems, virtual checkout

Fewer than half of the orders (42.6%) placed during a telehealth visit were completed within the designated time frame, compared with 58.4% of the orders placed during an in-person visit and 57.4% placed without a visit.

Patients who had telehealth visits were roughly half as likely as those who had in-person visits to close the loop on high-risk tests and referrals, even in an analysis that adjusted for test type, patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, clinical site, clinician type, and patient engagement (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.64).

Only 39.8% of colonoscopy referrals ordered during a telehealth visit were completed during the 365-day time period, compared with 56.9% ordered during an in-person visit and 56.7% ordered without a visit.

Follow-through with dermatology referrals within 90 days was roughly the same across all types of visits (63.1% for telehealth, 61.5% for in-person, and 62.9% for no visit). No significant differences were found between telehealth and in-person visits or orders placed without a visit.

Although patients seen via telehealth were less likely than those seen in person to follow through on cardiac stress tests within the 45-day window (59.1% vs. 63.2%), this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

“Ideally, clinicians would implement automatic tracking systems to help ensure that an ordered test or referral is completed,” Dr. Amat commented. “However, if these systems aren’t yet in place, we strongly encourage clinicians to create their own work flows for tracking tests to completion.”

Additionally, “clinicians should consider implementing a virtual checkout system, similar to what is done during in-person visits, to help patients better understand recommended next steps,” she continued.

Other potentially helpful ways to improve loop closure include automatic tracking for outstanding tests, interventions such as telephone outreach to patients, automated text and email reminders, and the use of referral managers – especially in remote, rural areas or for “disadvantaged patients with limited health care access and literacy.”
 

Education is key

Kisha Davis, MD, MPH, member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview that being able to see a provider virtually can make the difference between a person receiving or not receiving medical care. She regards telehealth as another tool in the toolkit her practice offers to provide comprehensive health care.

Dr. Davis, a family physician in Gaithersburg, Md., who wasn’t involved with the study, described a patient with hypertension who was an Uber driver. “During the pandemic, Uber rides were down, and he couldn›t afford to pass up any opportunities, so he pulled over to the side of the road after one of his rides, did his telehealth visit, reviewed his medications, and went on to his next ride.”

The key is to make sure that patients receive adequate follow-up from the office, which Dr. Davis arranged for this patient.

She noted that telehealth “is best done if there’s an established physician-patient relationship but harder to accomplish successfully if you’ve only met the patient on telehealth and never in person.”

The study didn’t specify whether the physicians had an established relationship with their patients.

During the checkout process after an in-person appointment, patients often receive a sheet of paper with the follow-up referrals. “I can see where patients are less likely to follow through if they don’t have someone handing them that paper,” she said.

In her practice, patients’ charts are color-coded “to keep track and make sure it’s not just the ‘squeaky wheels’ that get all the attention,” she said. “The onus is on the physician and the practice, in today’s world of value-based care, to make sure that patients who don’t come into the office are getting the care they need.”

This is facilitated by a “system of care coordination” in which the office team – such as a nurse or medical assistant – follows up with patients to see if they’ve “gotten everything done without barriers,” Dr. Davis said. “Did they have trouble filling that prescription? Did they have difficulty with the referral? Or do they not think it’s necessary – for example, a patient might not go to physical therapy because the injury has improved.”

Dr. Davis wasn’t surprised that patients were less likely to close the loop for colonoscopies compared with seeking out a stress test or treatment for skin lesions.

“People who have a skin lesion may be concerned about their appearance or about skin cancer, and people who need a stress test may have had cardiac symptoms or be worried about their heart.” But a routine screening such as a colonoscopy may not mobilize the patient’s concern to the same degree.

“Additionally, a colonoscopy has an ‘ick factor,’ so there aren’t a whole lot of people who are jumping to have the procedure done.” She suggested considering newer FDA-approved stool tests to screen for colon cancer.

Dr. Amat and Dr. Davis both emphasized that educating patients – both during and after the visit – and making sure they understand the importance of their referral for tests or specialists referrals are key to ensuring that they follow through on the recommendations.

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Amat was supported by the Arnold Tofias and Leo Condakes Quality Scholarship Program. Dr. Amat declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Davis is the chief health officer for Montgomery County in Maryland.

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

Telehealth has been a boon for modern-day patients, allowing people who might have difficulty accessing in-person appointments to continue seeing their physicians. But how many patients actually follow through on their physician’s recommendations afterward?

A new study suggests that many patients don’t complete recommended diagnostic tests or specialist referrals after appointments with their primary care physicians, especially when those appointments take place via telehealth.

Investigators retrospectively examined test and referral orders for more than 4,000 patients to see how many complied with recommendations to have a colonoscopy, consult a dermatologist for a suspicious skin lesion, or undergo a cardiac stress test.

Completion of a recommended test or specialty referral was termed “diagnostic loop closure.” In particular, the researchers wanted to compare loop closure after telehealth versus in-person visits.

Rates of loop closure were low across all visit modalities but were lower for tests and referrals ordered during telehealth visits, compared with in-person visits – especially for colonoscopies.

“The take-home message for practicing clinicians is that they should be especially aware of follow-up for tests or referrals ordered during telehealth visits,” said corresponding author Maëlys Amat, MD, MBA, a primary care physician at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

The study was published online on in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Unintended side effects’

“Diagnostic errors present a huge safety concern, impacting many patient lives and costing the health care system billions of dollars, said Dr. Amat, who is also an instructor at Harvard Medical School.

“Telehealth utilization increased rapidly during the COVID pandemic, and although there are clear benefits to utilizing telehealth, our team sought to investigate unintended side effects of this technology and highlight opportunities for improvement,” she said.

To investigate the question, the researchers reviewed medical records of 4,113 patients, with a mean age of 59 years, at two Boston-based primary care sites: an urban hospital–based primary care practice and an affiliated community health center.

Orders for tests or referrals in both centers were placed electronically through the medical record. During an in-person visit, the patient was handed a form with a phone number to call to schedule the test or referral. Patients with limited English proficiency or complex needs may have received help with the scheduling the referral during check-out.

For telehealth visits, the clinician gave the patient the phone number to call to schedule the test or referral during the visit itself. In all scenarios, patients did not receive communication after the visit reminding them about the referral or test.

A loop was considered “closed” if the orders were completed within 365 days, 90 days, or 45 days for colonoscopy, dermatology visits, or cardiac stress testing, respectively.

Of the tests, 52.4% were ordered during an in-person visit, 27.8% were ordered during a telehealth visit, and 19.7% were ordered without a visit.

Tracking systems, virtual checkout

Fewer than half of the orders (42.6%) placed during a telehealth visit were completed within the designated time frame, compared with 58.4% of the orders placed during an in-person visit and 57.4% placed without a visit.

Patients who had telehealth visits were roughly half as likely as those who had in-person visits to close the loop on high-risk tests and referrals, even in an analysis that adjusted for test type, patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, clinical site, clinician type, and patient engagement (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.64).

Only 39.8% of colonoscopy referrals ordered during a telehealth visit were completed during the 365-day time period, compared with 56.9% ordered during an in-person visit and 56.7% ordered without a visit.

Follow-through with dermatology referrals within 90 days was roughly the same across all types of visits (63.1% for telehealth, 61.5% for in-person, and 62.9% for no visit). No significant differences were found between telehealth and in-person visits or orders placed without a visit.

Although patients seen via telehealth were less likely than those seen in person to follow through on cardiac stress tests within the 45-day window (59.1% vs. 63.2%), this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

“Ideally, clinicians would implement automatic tracking systems to help ensure that an ordered test or referral is completed,” Dr. Amat commented. “However, if these systems aren’t yet in place, we strongly encourage clinicians to create their own work flows for tracking tests to completion.”

Additionally, “clinicians should consider implementing a virtual checkout system, similar to what is done during in-person visits, to help patients better understand recommended next steps,” she continued.

Other potentially helpful ways to improve loop closure include automatic tracking for outstanding tests, interventions such as telephone outreach to patients, automated text and email reminders, and the use of referral managers – especially in remote, rural areas or for “disadvantaged patients with limited health care access and literacy.”
 

Education is key

Kisha Davis, MD, MPH, member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview that being able to see a provider virtually can make the difference between a person receiving or not receiving medical care. She regards telehealth as another tool in the toolkit her practice offers to provide comprehensive health care.

Dr. Davis, a family physician in Gaithersburg, Md., who wasn’t involved with the study, described a patient with hypertension who was an Uber driver. “During the pandemic, Uber rides were down, and he couldn›t afford to pass up any opportunities, so he pulled over to the side of the road after one of his rides, did his telehealth visit, reviewed his medications, and went on to his next ride.”

The key is to make sure that patients receive adequate follow-up from the office, which Dr. Davis arranged for this patient.

She noted that telehealth “is best done if there’s an established physician-patient relationship but harder to accomplish successfully if you’ve only met the patient on telehealth and never in person.”

The study didn’t specify whether the physicians had an established relationship with their patients.

During the checkout process after an in-person appointment, patients often receive a sheet of paper with the follow-up referrals. “I can see where patients are less likely to follow through if they don’t have someone handing them that paper,” she said.

In her practice, patients’ charts are color-coded “to keep track and make sure it’s not just the ‘squeaky wheels’ that get all the attention,” she said. “The onus is on the physician and the practice, in today’s world of value-based care, to make sure that patients who don’t come into the office are getting the care they need.”

This is facilitated by a “system of care coordination” in which the office team – such as a nurse or medical assistant – follows up with patients to see if they’ve “gotten everything done without barriers,” Dr. Davis said. “Did they have trouble filling that prescription? Did they have difficulty with the referral? Or do they not think it’s necessary – for example, a patient might not go to physical therapy because the injury has improved.”

Dr. Davis wasn’t surprised that patients were less likely to close the loop for colonoscopies compared with seeking out a stress test or treatment for skin lesions.

“People who have a skin lesion may be concerned about their appearance or about skin cancer, and people who need a stress test may have had cardiac symptoms or be worried about their heart.” But a routine screening such as a colonoscopy may not mobilize the patient’s concern to the same degree.

“Additionally, a colonoscopy has an ‘ick factor,’ so there aren’t a whole lot of people who are jumping to have the procedure done.” She suggested considering newer FDA-approved stool tests to screen for colon cancer.

Dr. Amat and Dr. Davis both emphasized that educating patients – both during and after the visit – and making sure they understand the importance of their referral for tests or specialists referrals are key to ensuring that they follow through on the recommendations.

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Amat was supported by the Arnold Tofias and Leo Condakes Quality Scholarship Program. Dr. Amat declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Davis is the chief health officer for Montgomery County in Maryland.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Indu Subramanian, MD: It’s my pleasure to have Ray Dorsey on our program today. Ray is a professor of neurology at the University of Rochester and has been doing some amazing advocacy work in largely the space of trying to end Parkinson’s disease.

E. Ray Dorsey, MD: Thanks very much for having me, Indu. I’m delighted to be with you.
 

Trichloroethylene and PD

Dr. Subramanian: I wanted to first highlight some of the work that has come out and gotten a large amount of media attention around Camp Lejeune and specifically trichloroethylene (TCE) as a cause of Parkinson’s, and one of the environmental toxins that we talk about as something that is in pretty much everywhere. This paper came out, and you wrote a commentary in JAMA Neurology as well. Perhaps we can summarize the paper and its findings.

Dr. Dorsey: Like most people, I didn’t know what TCE was until about 5 or 6 years ago. TCE is a very simple molecule. It’s got six atoms – two carbon atoms, one hydrogen atom, and three chlorine atoms — hence, its name “trichloroethylene.” There’s a very similar chemical called perchloroethylene, which is widely used in dry cleaning. It’s got one additional chlorine atom, and the prefix “per-” means “four.” I’ll talk about TCE predominantly, but both of these chemicals probably have similar toxicity with respect to Parkinson’s disease.

Research done by Dr. Carlie Tanner and Dr. Sam Goldman about a decade ago showed that in twins who were exposed to this through their work (it’s widely used as a degreasing agent) or hobbies (it’s used in printing and painting, by varnish workers, or by anyone that needs it as a solvent) had a 500% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Importantly, in that study, they showed that there was a lag time of 10-40 years between exposure to that chemical and the diagnosis of the disease. Because TCE was so widely used, they said that public health implications could be substantial.

What’s Camp Lejeune? Camp Lejeune is a Marine base in North Carolina where many Marines are trained. Between 1953 and 1987 at that Marine base, the drinking water was contaminated with TCE, perchloroethylene, and other toxic chemicals. The reason Camp Lejeune is so infamous is because the Marines knew about the contamination for many years and covered it up.

Indeed, this story only came to the forefront because Jennie Ensminger, the daughter of a Marine drill instructor, developed leukemia at age 6 and died at age 9. Her father, Jerry Ensminger, a retired master sergeant, found out after the fact that these cancer-causing chemicals, including TCE, a known carcinogen, were found at the Marine base and could be an explanation for why his daughter developed and died of leukemia.

Dr. Sam Goldman and Dr. Carlie Tanner and colleagues from UCSF looked at the rates of Parkinson’s among Marines who served at Camp Lejeune during the 1970s and compared that with rates in Marines who served Camp Pendleton on the West Coast. It turned out that the Marines who served at Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than the Marines who served at Camp Pendleton.

Importantly, these Marines, by definition, were healthy. They were young. They were only 20 years old, on average, when they were at Camp Lejeune. They stayed at a Marine base for a short period of time, so on average, they were only there for 2 years. Yet 30 years later, they had a 70% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
 

Ending Parkinson’s disease

Dr. Subramanian: Wow, that’s pretty profound. You’ve done a large amount of work, and in fact you, along with some of our colleagues wrote a book about ending Parkinson’s disease. I read that book when it came out a couple of years ago, and I was really struck by a few things. Parkinson’s has doubled in the past 40 years and is going to double again in the next 20 years. Can you tell me a little bit about that statistic and why that is? It’s not just because people are aging. What is the sense of that? How do we interpret that?

Dr. Dorsey: According to the Global Burden of Disease study, which I was fortunate to be part of, the number of people with Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled in the past 25 years. A conservative projection based on aging alone suggests that it’s going to double again unless we change something about it. It’s now the world’s fastest-growing brain disease, and it is growing faster than can be explained by aging alone.

If you look at the map of Parkinson’s disease, if you thought it was purely genetic, you would have a relatively uniform map of rates of Parkinson’s disease. In fact, we don’t see that. Rates of Parkinson’s are five times higher in industrialized parts of the world, like the United States and Canada, than they are in sub-Saharan Africa. Rates of Parkinson’s disease are increasing most rapidly in areas of world that are undergoing the most rapid industrialization, such as India and China, where adjusted for age, the rates of Parkinson’s have more than doubled in the past 25 years.

The thesis of our book is that much of Parkinson’s disease is man-made. Work done by your colleagues at UCLA, including Jeff Bronstein and Beate Ritz, have demonstrated that air pollution and certain pesticides are likely fueling the rise of Parkinson’s disease.

Given that in the United States, rates of Parkinson’s disease are actually higher in urban and suburban areas than they are in rural areas, I think that this dry-cleaning chemical – which was widely used in the 1970s in everything from typewriter correction fluid to decaffeinated coffee and [over] 2 pounds per American [was produced] – could be one of the most important causes or contributing factors to Parkinson’s disease.

What to tell patients

Dr. Subramanian: For the general neurologists or practitioners out there watching this, what can they do? If you have a patient whom you suspect may have been exposed to toxins, what should we tell people who aren’t patients yet who are at risk? What are some things that you think would be helpful?

Dr. Dorsey: I think one of the shortcomings of American medicine is that we often just go from diagnosis to treatment. You’re depressed, you get an antidepressant; you have Parkinson’s disease, you get levodopa; you have seizures, you get put on an antiepileptic medication.

I think we need to spend a couple of minutes at least, maybe at the beginning, to go to the diagnosis of the condition and why you have this disease. If you just do a brief occupational history, after you start the exam – things like finding out what people do for a living or did for a living or how they spend their time – I think you’ll find many of these risk factors are actually present.

It’s pretty easy to identify whether people grew up in a rural area and drank well water, which is prone to be contaminated with pesticides. We know that people who drink [contaminated] well water have about a 75% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. I think you can find for people, especially when they grew up, when they were young, that the most relevant exposure might be that when people were young children.

It’s a little bit harder to identify all exposure to TCE. The Marines at Camp Lejeune didn’t know they were drinking the water that was contaminated with this and only found out about it after the fact because Jerry Ensminger launched a 26-year campaign to bring justice for the Marines and their dependents.

Some people who know that they work with chemicals or with solvents might know about this. In New York City, these chemicals are widely used in dry cleaning. They’re readily volatile. These chemicals can evaporate from dry-cleaning buildings and go into the indoor air of apartments above dry cleaners, for example, in New York City. That can be in toxic levels. These readily dissolve in fat, hence their use in degreasing.

There have been studies, for example, in Germany, that found that supermarkets that are simply near a dry cleaner will have TCE or perchloroethylene in the butter and the cheese that they’re selling.

It gets even worse. For example, you bring your daughter into the dry-cleaning building and she’s eating an ice cream cone. When she leaves, she’s eating perchloroethylene and TCE.

It’s a little bit harder to find it, but I think it’s relevant because some people might be still being exposed and some people might still be drinking well water and they rarely have their well tested. For those people, I recommend they get their well tested and I recommend all my patients to get a carbon filter to decrease exposure to pesticides and chemicals. A carbon filter is just like what Brita and Pure and other brands are.

Because they’re chemicals known to cause cancer, I get a little bit concerned about cancer screening. This is most strongly tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver cancer, and renal cancer. It’s also linked to multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, probably brain cancer, and probably breast cancer, especially in men.

I tell people to be concerned about those, and then I tell people to avoid pesticides if they have Parkinson’s disease in all its forms, not only in the drinking water but in the produce you buy, the food you eat, what you put on your lawn, what’s on the golf course where you play, and the like.

Dr. Subramanian: I would say, just from the wellness perspective, if people are at risk for degenerative disease in terms of their brain health, things like sleep, mind-body practices, exercise, diet (Mediterranean or organic, if you can), and avoiding pesticides are all important. Social connection is important as well – the things that we think are helpful in general as people age and to prevent Alzheimer’s and other things like that.

Dr. Dorsey: These are fantastic ways to modify disease course. The evidence for them is only increasing. There’s an analogy I like to use. If someone is diagnosed with lung cancer, the first thing we tell them to do is to stop smoking. If someone’s diagnosed with Parkinson’s, we don’t tell them to stop getting exposure to pesticides. We don’t tell them to stop dry cleaning their clothes. We don’t tell them to avoid air pollution. These are all risk factors that are increasingly well established for Parkinson’s disease.

I think Parkinson’s disease, fundamentally for the vast majority of people, is an entirely preventable disease. We’re not taking actions to prevent people from getting this very disabling and very deadly disease.
 

Advocacy work

Dr. Subramanian: You and I are quite interested in the sense of being advocates as neurologists, and I think it fuels our passion and helps us to wake up every morning feeling like we have something that is meaningful and purposeful in our lives. Could you describe this as your passion and how it may prevent burnout and what it’s given you as a neurologist?

Dr. Dorsey: The credit for much of this is Dr. Carlie Tanner at UC San Francisco. I had the gift of sabbatical and I started reading the literature, I started reading her literature, and I came away with that, over the past 25 years, she detailed these environmental risk factors that are linked to Parkinson’s disease. Pesticides, these dry-cleaning chemicals, and air pollution. When I read it, I just realized that this was the case.

The same time I was reading her work, I read this book called “How to Survive a Plague,” by David France, who was a member of a group called Act Up, which was a group of men in New York City who reacted to the emergence of HIV in the 1980s. If you remember the 1980s, there was no federal response to HIV. People were blamed for the diseases that they were developing. It was only because brave men and women in New York City and in San Francisco banded together and organized that they changed the course of HIV.

They didn’t just do it for themselves. They did it for all of us. You and I and many people may not have HIV because of their courage. They made HIV a treatable condition. It’s actually more treatable than Parkinson’s disease. It’s associated with a near-normal life expectancy. They also made it a preventable disease. Thousands, if not millions, of us don’t have HIV because of their work. It’s an increasingly less common disease. Rates of HIV are actually decreasing, which is something that you or I would never have expected when we were in medical training.

I can’t think of a better outcome for a neurologist or any physician than to make the diseases that they’re caring for nonexistent ... than if we lived in a world that didn’t have HIV, we lived in a world where lung cancer largely didn’t exist. We’ve had worlds in the past where Parkinson’s probably didn’t exist or existed in extremely small numbers. That might be true for diffuse Lewy body disease and others, and if these diseases are preventable, we can take actions as individuals and as a society to lower our risk.

What a wonderful gift for future generations and many generations to come, hopefully, to live in a world that’s largely devoid of Parkinson’s disease. Just like we live in a world free of typhus. We live in a world free of smallpox. We live in a world where polio is extraordinarily uncommon. We don’t even have treatments for polio because we just don’t have polio. I think we can do the same thing for Parkinson’s disease for the vast majority.

Dr. Subramanian: Thank you so much, Ray, for your advocacy. We’re getting to the point in neurology, which is exciting to me, of possibly primary prevention of some of these disorders. I think we have a role in that, which is exciting for the future.

Dr. Dorsey: Absolutely.
 

Dr. Subramanian is clinical professor, department of neurology, University of California Los Angeles, and director of PADRECC (Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Centers), West Los Angeles Veterans Association, Los Angeles. She disclosed ties with Acorda Pharma. Dr. Dorsey is the David M. Levy Professor of Neurology, University of Rochester (N.Y.). He disclosed ties to Abbott, AbbVie, Acadia, Acorda Therapeutics, Averitas Pharma, Biogen, BioSensics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Caraway Therapeutics, CuraSen, DConsult2, Denali Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Health & Wellness Partners, HMP Education, Included Health, Karger, KOL Groups, Life Sciences, Mediflix, Medrhythms, Merck; MJH Holdings, North American Center for Continuing Medical Education, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Photopharmics, Praxis Medicine, Roche, Safra Foundation, Sanofi, Seelos Therapeutics, SemCap, Spark Therapeutics, Springer Healthcare, Synapticure, Theravance Biopharmaceuticals, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Indu Subramanian, MD: It’s my pleasure to have Ray Dorsey on our program today. Ray is a professor of neurology at the University of Rochester and has been doing some amazing advocacy work in largely the space of trying to end Parkinson’s disease.

E. Ray Dorsey, MD: Thanks very much for having me, Indu. I’m delighted to be with you.
 

Trichloroethylene and PD

Dr. Subramanian: I wanted to first highlight some of the work that has come out and gotten a large amount of media attention around Camp Lejeune and specifically trichloroethylene (TCE) as a cause of Parkinson’s, and one of the environmental toxins that we talk about as something that is in pretty much everywhere. This paper came out, and you wrote a commentary in JAMA Neurology as well. Perhaps we can summarize the paper and its findings.

Dr. Dorsey: Like most people, I didn’t know what TCE was until about 5 or 6 years ago. TCE is a very simple molecule. It’s got six atoms – two carbon atoms, one hydrogen atom, and three chlorine atoms — hence, its name “trichloroethylene.” There’s a very similar chemical called perchloroethylene, which is widely used in dry cleaning. It’s got one additional chlorine atom, and the prefix “per-” means “four.” I’ll talk about TCE predominantly, but both of these chemicals probably have similar toxicity with respect to Parkinson’s disease.

Research done by Dr. Carlie Tanner and Dr. Sam Goldman about a decade ago showed that in twins who were exposed to this through their work (it’s widely used as a degreasing agent) or hobbies (it’s used in printing and painting, by varnish workers, or by anyone that needs it as a solvent) had a 500% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Importantly, in that study, they showed that there was a lag time of 10-40 years between exposure to that chemical and the diagnosis of the disease. Because TCE was so widely used, they said that public health implications could be substantial.

What’s Camp Lejeune? Camp Lejeune is a Marine base in North Carolina where many Marines are trained. Between 1953 and 1987 at that Marine base, the drinking water was contaminated with TCE, perchloroethylene, and other toxic chemicals. The reason Camp Lejeune is so infamous is because the Marines knew about the contamination for many years and covered it up.

Indeed, this story only came to the forefront because Jennie Ensminger, the daughter of a Marine drill instructor, developed leukemia at age 6 and died at age 9. Her father, Jerry Ensminger, a retired master sergeant, found out after the fact that these cancer-causing chemicals, including TCE, a known carcinogen, were found at the Marine base and could be an explanation for why his daughter developed and died of leukemia.

Dr. Sam Goldman and Dr. Carlie Tanner and colleagues from UCSF looked at the rates of Parkinson’s among Marines who served at Camp Lejeune during the 1970s and compared that with rates in Marines who served Camp Pendleton on the West Coast. It turned out that the Marines who served at Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than the Marines who served at Camp Pendleton.

Importantly, these Marines, by definition, were healthy. They were young. They were only 20 years old, on average, when they were at Camp Lejeune. They stayed at a Marine base for a short period of time, so on average, they were only there for 2 years. Yet 30 years later, they had a 70% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
 

Ending Parkinson’s disease

Dr. Subramanian: Wow, that’s pretty profound. You’ve done a large amount of work, and in fact you, along with some of our colleagues wrote a book about ending Parkinson’s disease. I read that book when it came out a couple of years ago, and I was really struck by a few things. Parkinson’s has doubled in the past 40 years and is going to double again in the next 20 years. Can you tell me a little bit about that statistic and why that is? It’s not just because people are aging. What is the sense of that? How do we interpret that?

Dr. Dorsey: According to the Global Burden of Disease study, which I was fortunate to be part of, the number of people with Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled in the past 25 years. A conservative projection based on aging alone suggests that it’s going to double again unless we change something about it. It’s now the world’s fastest-growing brain disease, and it is growing faster than can be explained by aging alone.

If you look at the map of Parkinson’s disease, if you thought it was purely genetic, you would have a relatively uniform map of rates of Parkinson’s disease. In fact, we don’t see that. Rates of Parkinson’s are five times higher in industrialized parts of the world, like the United States and Canada, than they are in sub-Saharan Africa. Rates of Parkinson’s disease are increasing most rapidly in areas of world that are undergoing the most rapid industrialization, such as India and China, where adjusted for age, the rates of Parkinson’s have more than doubled in the past 25 years.

The thesis of our book is that much of Parkinson’s disease is man-made. Work done by your colleagues at UCLA, including Jeff Bronstein and Beate Ritz, have demonstrated that air pollution and certain pesticides are likely fueling the rise of Parkinson’s disease.

Given that in the United States, rates of Parkinson’s disease are actually higher in urban and suburban areas than they are in rural areas, I think that this dry-cleaning chemical – which was widely used in the 1970s in everything from typewriter correction fluid to decaffeinated coffee and [over] 2 pounds per American [was produced] – could be one of the most important causes or contributing factors to Parkinson’s disease.

What to tell patients

Dr. Subramanian: For the general neurologists or practitioners out there watching this, what can they do? If you have a patient whom you suspect may have been exposed to toxins, what should we tell people who aren’t patients yet who are at risk? What are some things that you think would be helpful?

Dr. Dorsey: I think one of the shortcomings of American medicine is that we often just go from diagnosis to treatment. You’re depressed, you get an antidepressant; you have Parkinson’s disease, you get levodopa; you have seizures, you get put on an antiepileptic medication.

I think we need to spend a couple of minutes at least, maybe at the beginning, to go to the diagnosis of the condition and why you have this disease. If you just do a brief occupational history, after you start the exam – things like finding out what people do for a living or did for a living or how they spend their time – I think you’ll find many of these risk factors are actually present.

It’s pretty easy to identify whether people grew up in a rural area and drank well water, which is prone to be contaminated with pesticides. We know that people who drink [contaminated] well water have about a 75% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. I think you can find for people, especially when they grew up, when they were young, that the most relevant exposure might be that when people were young children.

It’s a little bit harder to identify all exposure to TCE. The Marines at Camp Lejeune didn’t know they were drinking the water that was contaminated with this and only found out about it after the fact because Jerry Ensminger launched a 26-year campaign to bring justice for the Marines and their dependents.

Some people who know that they work with chemicals or with solvents might know about this. In New York City, these chemicals are widely used in dry cleaning. They’re readily volatile. These chemicals can evaporate from dry-cleaning buildings and go into the indoor air of apartments above dry cleaners, for example, in New York City. That can be in toxic levels. These readily dissolve in fat, hence their use in degreasing.

There have been studies, for example, in Germany, that found that supermarkets that are simply near a dry cleaner will have TCE or perchloroethylene in the butter and the cheese that they’re selling.

It gets even worse. For example, you bring your daughter into the dry-cleaning building and she’s eating an ice cream cone. When she leaves, she’s eating perchloroethylene and TCE.

It’s a little bit harder to find it, but I think it’s relevant because some people might be still being exposed and some people might still be drinking well water and they rarely have their well tested. For those people, I recommend they get their well tested and I recommend all my patients to get a carbon filter to decrease exposure to pesticides and chemicals. A carbon filter is just like what Brita and Pure and other brands are.

Because they’re chemicals known to cause cancer, I get a little bit concerned about cancer screening. This is most strongly tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver cancer, and renal cancer. It’s also linked to multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, probably brain cancer, and probably breast cancer, especially in men.

I tell people to be concerned about those, and then I tell people to avoid pesticides if they have Parkinson’s disease in all its forms, not only in the drinking water but in the produce you buy, the food you eat, what you put on your lawn, what’s on the golf course where you play, and the like.

Dr. Subramanian: I would say, just from the wellness perspective, if people are at risk for degenerative disease in terms of their brain health, things like sleep, mind-body practices, exercise, diet (Mediterranean or organic, if you can), and avoiding pesticides are all important. Social connection is important as well – the things that we think are helpful in general as people age and to prevent Alzheimer’s and other things like that.

Dr. Dorsey: These are fantastic ways to modify disease course. The evidence for them is only increasing. There’s an analogy I like to use. If someone is diagnosed with lung cancer, the first thing we tell them to do is to stop smoking. If someone’s diagnosed with Parkinson’s, we don’t tell them to stop getting exposure to pesticides. We don’t tell them to stop dry cleaning their clothes. We don’t tell them to avoid air pollution. These are all risk factors that are increasingly well established for Parkinson’s disease.

I think Parkinson’s disease, fundamentally for the vast majority of people, is an entirely preventable disease. We’re not taking actions to prevent people from getting this very disabling and very deadly disease.
 

Advocacy work

Dr. Subramanian: You and I are quite interested in the sense of being advocates as neurologists, and I think it fuels our passion and helps us to wake up every morning feeling like we have something that is meaningful and purposeful in our lives. Could you describe this as your passion and how it may prevent burnout and what it’s given you as a neurologist?

Dr. Dorsey: The credit for much of this is Dr. Carlie Tanner at UC San Francisco. I had the gift of sabbatical and I started reading the literature, I started reading her literature, and I came away with that, over the past 25 years, she detailed these environmental risk factors that are linked to Parkinson’s disease. Pesticides, these dry-cleaning chemicals, and air pollution. When I read it, I just realized that this was the case.

The same time I was reading her work, I read this book called “How to Survive a Plague,” by David France, who was a member of a group called Act Up, which was a group of men in New York City who reacted to the emergence of HIV in the 1980s. If you remember the 1980s, there was no federal response to HIV. People were blamed for the diseases that they were developing. It was only because brave men and women in New York City and in San Francisco banded together and organized that they changed the course of HIV.

They didn’t just do it for themselves. They did it for all of us. You and I and many people may not have HIV because of their courage. They made HIV a treatable condition. It’s actually more treatable than Parkinson’s disease. It’s associated with a near-normal life expectancy. They also made it a preventable disease. Thousands, if not millions, of us don’t have HIV because of their work. It’s an increasingly less common disease. Rates of HIV are actually decreasing, which is something that you or I would never have expected when we were in medical training.

I can’t think of a better outcome for a neurologist or any physician than to make the diseases that they’re caring for nonexistent ... than if we lived in a world that didn’t have HIV, we lived in a world where lung cancer largely didn’t exist. We’ve had worlds in the past where Parkinson’s probably didn’t exist or existed in extremely small numbers. That might be true for diffuse Lewy body disease and others, and if these diseases are preventable, we can take actions as individuals and as a society to lower our risk.

What a wonderful gift for future generations and many generations to come, hopefully, to live in a world that’s largely devoid of Parkinson’s disease. Just like we live in a world free of typhus. We live in a world free of smallpox. We live in a world where polio is extraordinarily uncommon. We don’t even have treatments for polio because we just don’t have polio. I think we can do the same thing for Parkinson’s disease for the vast majority.

Dr. Subramanian: Thank you so much, Ray, for your advocacy. We’re getting to the point in neurology, which is exciting to me, of possibly primary prevention of some of these disorders. I think we have a role in that, which is exciting for the future.

Dr. Dorsey: Absolutely.
 

Dr. Subramanian is clinical professor, department of neurology, University of California Los Angeles, and director of PADRECC (Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Centers), West Los Angeles Veterans Association, Los Angeles. She disclosed ties with Acorda Pharma. Dr. Dorsey is the David M. Levy Professor of Neurology, University of Rochester (N.Y.). He disclosed ties to Abbott, AbbVie, Acadia, Acorda Therapeutics, Averitas Pharma, Biogen, BioSensics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Caraway Therapeutics, CuraSen, DConsult2, Denali Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Health & Wellness Partners, HMP Education, Included Health, Karger, KOL Groups, Life Sciences, Mediflix, Medrhythms, Merck; MJH Holdings, North American Center for Continuing Medical Education, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Photopharmics, Praxis Medicine, Roche, Safra Foundation, Sanofi, Seelos Therapeutics, SemCap, Spark Therapeutics, Springer Healthcare, Synapticure, Theravance Biopharmaceuticals, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Indu Subramanian, MD: It’s my pleasure to have Ray Dorsey on our program today. Ray is a professor of neurology at the University of Rochester and has been doing some amazing advocacy work in largely the space of trying to end Parkinson’s disease.

E. Ray Dorsey, MD: Thanks very much for having me, Indu. I’m delighted to be with you.
 

Trichloroethylene and PD

Dr. Subramanian: I wanted to first highlight some of the work that has come out and gotten a large amount of media attention around Camp Lejeune and specifically trichloroethylene (TCE) as a cause of Parkinson’s, and one of the environmental toxins that we talk about as something that is in pretty much everywhere. This paper came out, and you wrote a commentary in JAMA Neurology as well. Perhaps we can summarize the paper and its findings.

Dr. Dorsey: Like most people, I didn’t know what TCE was until about 5 or 6 years ago. TCE is a very simple molecule. It’s got six atoms – two carbon atoms, one hydrogen atom, and three chlorine atoms — hence, its name “trichloroethylene.” There’s a very similar chemical called perchloroethylene, which is widely used in dry cleaning. It’s got one additional chlorine atom, and the prefix “per-” means “four.” I’ll talk about TCE predominantly, but both of these chemicals probably have similar toxicity with respect to Parkinson’s disease.

Research done by Dr. Carlie Tanner and Dr. Sam Goldman about a decade ago showed that in twins who were exposed to this through their work (it’s widely used as a degreasing agent) or hobbies (it’s used in printing and painting, by varnish workers, or by anyone that needs it as a solvent) had a 500% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Importantly, in that study, they showed that there was a lag time of 10-40 years between exposure to that chemical and the diagnosis of the disease. Because TCE was so widely used, they said that public health implications could be substantial.

What’s Camp Lejeune? Camp Lejeune is a Marine base in North Carolina where many Marines are trained. Between 1953 and 1987 at that Marine base, the drinking water was contaminated with TCE, perchloroethylene, and other toxic chemicals. The reason Camp Lejeune is so infamous is because the Marines knew about the contamination for many years and covered it up.

Indeed, this story only came to the forefront because Jennie Ensminger, the daughter of a Marine drill instructor, developed leukemia at age 6 and died at age 9. Her father, Jerry Ensminger, a retired master sergeant, found out after the fact that these cancer-causing chemicals, including TCE, a known carcinogen, were found at the Marine base and could be an explanation for why his daughter developed and died of leukemia.

Dr. Sam Goldman and Dr. Carlie Tanner and colleagues from UCSF looked at the rates of Parkinson’s among Marines who served at Camp Lejeune during the 1970s and compared that with rates in Marines who served Camp Pendleton on the West Coast. It turned out that the Marines who served at Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than the Marines who served at Camp Pendleton.

Importantly, these Marines, by definition, were healthy. They were young. They were only 20 years old, on average, when they were at Camp Lejeune. They stayed at a Marine base for a short period of time, so on average, they were only there for 2 years. Yet 30 years later, they had a 70% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
 

Ending Parkinson’s disease

Dr. Subramanian: Wow, that’s pretty profound. You’ve done a large amount of work, and in fact you, along with some of our colleagues wrote a book about ending Parkinson’s disease. I read that book when it came out a couple of years ago, and I was really struck by a few things. Parkinson’s has doubled in the past 40 years and is going to double again in the next 20 years. Can you tell me a little bit about that statistic and why that is? It’s not just because people are aging. What is the sense of that? How do we interpret that?

Dr. Dorsey: According to the Global Burden of Disease study, which I was fortunate to be part of, the number of people with Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled in the past 25 years. A conservative projection based on aging alone suggests that it’s going to double again unless we change something about it. It’s now the world’s fastest-growing brain disease, and it is growing faster than can be explained by aging alone.

If you look at the map of Parkinson’s disease, if you thought it was purely genetic, you would have a relatively uniform map of rates of Parkinson’s disease. In fact, we don’t see that. Rates of Parkinson’s are five times higher in industrialized parts of the world, like the United States and Canada, than they are in sub-Saharan Africa. Rates of Parkinson’s disease are increasing most rapidly in areas of world that are undergoing the most rapid industrialization, such as India and China, where adjusted for age, the rates of Parkinson’s have more than doubled in the past 25 years.

The thesis of our book is that much of Parkinson’s disease is man-made. Work done by your colleagues at UCLA, including Jeff Bronstein and Beate Ritz, have demonstrated that air pollution and certain pesticides are likely fueling the rise of Parkinson’s disease.

Given that in the United States, rates of Parkinson’s disease are actually higher in urban and suburban areas than they are in rural areas, I think that this dry-cleaning chemical – which was widely used in the 1970s in everything from typewriter correction fluid to decaffeinated coffee and [over] 2 pounds per American [was produced] – could be one of the most important causes or contributing factors to Parkinson’s disease.

What to tell patients

Dr. Subramanian: For the general neurologists or practitioners out there watching this, what can they do? If you have a patient whom you suspect may have been exposed to toxins, what should we tell people who aren’t patients yet who are at risk? What are some things that you think would be helpful?

Dr. Dorsey: I think one of the shortcomings of American medicine is that we often just go from diagnosis to treatment. You’re depressed, you get an antidepressant; you have Parkinson’s disease, you get levodopa; you have seizures, you get put on an antiepileptic medication.

I think we need to spend a couple of minutes at least, maybe at the beginning, to go to the diagnosis of the condition and why you have this disease. If you just do a brief occupational history, after you start the exam – things like finding out what people do for a living or did for a living or how they spend their time – I think you’ll find many of these risk factors are actually present.

It’s pretty easy to identify whether people grew up in a rural area and drank well water, which is prone to be contaminated with pesticides. We know that people who drink [contaminated] well water have about a 75% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. I think you can find for people, especially when they grew up, when they were young, that the most relevant exposure might be that when people were young children.

It’s a little bit harder to identify all exposure to TCE. The Marines at Camp Lejeune didn’t know they were drinking the water that was contaminated with this and only found out about it after the fact because Jerry Ensminger launched a 26-year campaign to bring justice for the Marines and their dependents.

Some people who know that they work with chemicals or with solvents might know about this. In New York City, these chemicals are widely used in dry cleaning. They’re readily volatile. These chemicals can evaporate from dry-cleaning buildings and go into the indoor air of apartments above dry cleaners, for example, in New York City. That can be in toxic levels. These readily dissolve in fat, hence their use in degreasing.

There have been studies, for example, in Germany, that found that supermarkets that are simply near a dry cleaner will have TCE or perchloroethylene in the butter and the cheese that they’re selling.

It gets even worse. For example, you bring your daughter into the dry-cleaning building and she’s eating an ice cream cone. When she leaves, she’s eating perchloroethylene and TCE.

It’s a little bit harder to find it, but I think it’s relevant because some people might be still being exposed and some people might still be drinking well water and they rarely have their well tested. For those people, I recommend they get their well tested and I recommend all my patients to get a carbon filter to decrease exposure to pesticides and chemicals. A carbon filter is just like what Brita and Pure and other brands are.

Because they’re chemicals known to cause cancer, I get a little bit concerned about cancer screening. This is most strongly tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver cancer, and renal cancer. It’s also linked to multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, probably brain cancer, and probably breast cancer, especially in men.

I tell people to be concerned about those, and then I tell people to avoid pesticides if they have Parkinson’s disease in all its forms, not only in the drinking water but in the produce you buy, the food you eat, what you put on your lawn, what’s on the golf course where you play, and the like.

Dr. Subramanian: I would say, just from the wellness perspective, if people are at risk for degenerative disease in terms of their brain health, things like sleep, mind-body practices, exercise, diet (Mediterranean or organic, if you can), and avoiding pesticides are all important. Social connection is important as well – the things that we think are helpful in general as people age and to prevent Alzheimer’s and other things like that.

Dr. Dorsey: These are fantastic ways to modify disease course. The evidence for them is only increasing. There’s an analogy I like to use. If someone is diagnosed with lung cancer, the first thing we tell them to do is to stop smoking. If someone’s diagnosed with Parkinson’s, we don’t tell them to stop getting exposure to pesticides. We don’t tell them to stop dry cleaning their clothes. We don’t tell them to avoid air pollution. These are all risk factors that are increasingly well established for Parkinson’s disease.

I think Parkinson’s disease, fundamentally for the vast majority of people, is an entirely preventable disease. We’re not taking actions to prevent people from getting this very disabling and very deadly disease.
 

Advocacy work

Dr. Subramanian: You and I are quite interested in the sense of being advocates as neurologists, and I think it fuels our passion and helps us to wake up every morning feeling like we have something that is meaningful and purposeful in our lives. Could you describe this as your passion and how it may prevent burnout and what it’s given you as a neurologist?

Dr. Dorsey: The credit for much of this is Dr. Carlie Tanner at UC San Francisco. I had the gift of sabbatical and I started reading the literature, I started reading her literature, and I came away with that, over the past 25 years, she detailed these environmental risk factors that are linked to Parkinson’s disease. Pesticides, these dry-cleaning chemicals, and air pollution. When I read it, I just realized that this was the case.

The same time I was reading her work, I read this book called “How to Survive a Plague,” by David France, who was a member of a group called Act Up, which was a group of men in New York City who reacted to the emergence of HIV in the 1980s. If you remember the 1980s, there was no federal response to HIV. People were blamed for the diseases that they were developing. It was only because brave men and women in New York City and in San Francisco banded together and organized that they changed the course of HIV.

They didn’t just do it for themselves. They did it for all of us. You and I and many people may not have HIV because of their courage. They made HIV a treatable condition. It’s actually more treatable than Parkinson’s disease. It’s associated with a near-normal life expectancy. They also made it a preventable disease. Thousands, if not millions, of us don’t have HIV because of their work. It’s an increasingly less common disease. Rates of HIV are actually decreasing, which is something that you or I would never have expected when we were in medical training.

I can’t think of a better outcome for a neurologist or any physician than to make the diseases that they’re caring for nonexistent ... than if we lived in a world that didn’t have HIV, we lived in a world where lung cancer largely didn’t exist. We’ve had worlds in the past where Parkinson’s probably didn’t exist or existed in extremely small numbers. That might be true for diffuse Lewy body disease and others, and if these diseases are preventable, we can take actions as individuals and as a society to lower our risk.

What a wonderful gift for future generations and many generations to come, hopefully, to live in a world that’s largely devoid of Parkinson’s disease. Just like we live in a world free of typhus. We live in a world free of smallpox. We live in a world where polio is extraordinarily uncommon. We don’t even have treatments for polio because we just don’t have polio. I think we can do the same thing for Parkinson’s disease for the vast majority.

Dr. Subramanian: Thank you so much, Ray, for your advocacy. We’re getting to the point in neurology, which is exciting to me, of possibly primary prevention of some of these disorders. I think we have a role in that, which is exciting for the future.

Dr. Dorsey: Absolutely.
 

Dr. Subramanian is clinical professor, department of neurology, University of California Los Angeles, and director of PADRECC (Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Centers), West Los Angeles Veterans Association, Los Angeles. She disclosed ties with Acorda Pharma. Dr. Dorsey is the David M. Levy Professor of Neurology, University of Rochester (N.Y.). He disclosed ties to Abbott, AbbVie, Acadia, Acorda Therapeutics, Averitas Pharma, Biogen, BioSensics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Caraway Therapeutics, CuraSen, DConsult2, Denali Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Health & Wellness Partners, HMP Education, Included Health, Karger, KOL Groups, Life Sciences, Mediflix, Medrhythms, Merck; MJH Holdings, North American Center for Continuing Medical Education, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Photopharmics, Praxis Medicine, Roche, Safra Foundation, Sanofi, Seelos Therapeutics, SemCap, Spark Therapeutics, Springer Healthcare, Synapticure, Theravance Biopharmaceuticals, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded October 13, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I’ll be talking today with Dr. Meredith Wicklund, senior associate consultant and behavioral neurologist specialist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Welcome, Meredith.

Meredith Wicklund, MD: Thank you.
 

Lecanemab data

Dr. LaFaver: I’m very excited about our topic. We’ll be talking about monoclonal antibody therapy against amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease – which has really been a hot topic, especially this year with the FDA approval of lecanemab – and associated questions. Could you give us a brief overview of why there has been so much research interest in this topic of anti-amyloid antibodies?

Dr. Wicklund: The pathologic component of what defines something as Alzheimer’s disease is, by definition, presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles. When it was first discovered in the 1980s that the component of the plaques was actually the amyloid protein – beta amyloid specifically – interest went right from there to developing therapies to directly target the pathology that is Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Lecanemab is the first FDA-approved disease-modifying antibody in that realm. Could you review the study data, especially as it applies to both of us in daily neurology clinic?

Dr. Wicklund: The study data from a phase 3 trial did show, for the primary outcome, that there was a 27% slowing of decline compared with individuals on placebo. It’s important to point out that this was slowing of decline. It was not stabilizing decline. It was not improving decline.

I think it’s important that we inform our patients that really, even with this therapy, there’s no prospect of stabilizing or restoring cognition or function. We do progress at a slower rate compared with individuals not on this treatment, which, given that this medication is for individuals in mild disease who have relatively preserved functional status, that can be potentially very meaningful to families.

The overall benefit was small. It essentially amounts to half a point on an 18-point scale, which is statistically significant. How much clinical meaningfulness that actually leads to is unclear. Finding clinical meaningfulness cannot be defined by a particular test. It really can only be defined on the individual level, what is meaningful to them.
 

Recommended tests

Dr. LaFaver: It is my understanding that, to qualify for lecanemab use, one needs to have a biomarker-supported diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, either via an amyloid PET scan or CSF biomarkers. What would your recommendation be for a neurologist in practice to go about these requirements?

Dr. Wicklund: Since this medication is directly targeting the amyloid pathology, and it does convey a potential risk, we want to make sure that the actual pathology is present in the individuals before we treat them and potentially expose them to risk. The best way of doing that is through either an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid testing of beta amyloid and tau.

There are several plasma-based biomarkers in development. However, I would avoid using those currently. There are still many unknowns in terms of what exactly is the right species of tau that we should be looking at, the right mechanism of the lab test, how minority status may influence it, and how different comorbidities may influence it.

I would recommend, at this time, sticking with amyloid PET or CSF testing. Given that amyloid PET is not widely available in many community practices, generally only available at academic centers, and is quite costly, many insurances do not cover it – although Medicare has a proposal to potentially start covering it – I generally go with spinal fluid testing, which is more widely available. There are several labs across the country that can process that testing in a reliable way.
 

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities

Dr. LaFaver: That’s very helpful to know. There’s been a large amount of buzz just these past couple of weeks about the blood biomarker coming up. I think, as you point out, this wasn’t the marker used in the clinical studies and there are still unknowns. Maybe it’s not quite time for clinical use, unfortunately.

We also have learned that there are significant potential risks involved. One issue that’s really been a focus is ARIA – amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Could you speak a bit about that and requirements for monitoring?

Dr. Wicklund: ARIA essentially amounts to either vasogenic edema, microhemorrhages, or superficial siderosis that develops as a result of treatment. It relates to activation of the immune system with these passive monoclonal antibodies that’s going to occur with targeting against the plaques. In the parenchyma, it will cause edema. If you have amyloid in the walls of the blood vessels, it can cause microhemorrhages.

While the term “ARIA” implies an imaging-related abnormality, and it largely is purely an imaging finding, it’s not solely an imaging-related finding. It can cause symptoms, including very serious symptoms.

Overall, with lecanemab, the incidence of ARIA within the treatment group in the phase 3 study, combined between both ARIA-E (edema/effusion) and ARIA-H (hemorrhage), was 21.5%, with about 17% being ARIA-H and about 12.5% being ARIA-E. Of course, they can occur at the same time.

Overall, in terms of people in the clinical trials, for most it was purely an imaging-related finding. About 3% developed symptomatic ARIA. Some of those were very serious symptoms, including things like seizures and need to be hospitalized. A couple of deaths have been attributed to ARIA as well.

Patients on anticoagulation

Dr. LaFaver: Along those lines, any additional words to say for people who might be on anticoagulation or might require medications for a stroke, for example?

Dr. Wicklund: While individuals on anticoagulation were allowed in the clinical trials, the current, published appropriate-use guideline is recommending against its use, as several of the serious adverse effects, including the deaths, were for the most part attributed to anticoagulation use.

When it comes to acute stroke treatment, one must carefully consider use of tPA, as two of the three deaths were tPA associated in the clinical trials. It shouldn’t necessarily be an absolute contraindication, but it can make the clinical picture very muddy. If an individual is on lecanemab and comes to the ER with acute stroke-like symptoms, it’s more likely that they’re going to be having an ARIA side effect rather than an acute stroke.

A general recommendation would be to obtain an acute head CT with a CTA, and if there is a large vessel occlusion, proceed to thrombectomy. However, if there isn’t a large vessel occlusion, if you have the ability to get a rapid MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to screen for acute stroke changes or tissue flair with acute edema changes suggestive of ARIA, that would be preferred before proceeding with thrombolysis. These are all relative contraindications and are going to depend on what’s available near you.
 

Donanemab approval pending

Dr. LaFaver: This will be an issue because the population we’re talking about is definitely at risk for stroke as well as Alzheimer’s disease. Where do you see this field going as far as amyloid antibody therapy is concerned, with another agent, donanemab, possibly getting FDA approval later this year as well?

Dr. Wicklund: We’re anticipating that donanemab will get FDA approval in the next coming months. Donanemab also targets the amyloid in the brain, although lecanemab and donanemab target different aspects of the production of the amyloid plaque. They were both shown to have roughly equal efficacy in their phase 3 clinical trials. Donanemab has the benefit of being a once-monthly infusion as opposed to twice-monthly infusions with lecanemab. It does have a slightly higher risk for ARIA compared with lecanemab.

Those are just some things to take into consideration when talking with your patients. In terms of where we’re going from here, we’re moving even earlier in terms of disease state. The lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trials were done in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. They should not be used in individuals with moderate or more advanced Alzheimer’s disease.

There are ongoing, large, national, multicenter clinical trials of both lecanemab and donanemab in a preclinical state of Alzheimer’s disease. These individuals have evidence of amyloidosis, either through PET imaging or through CSF, but are clinically asymptomatic and do not yet have any signs of cognitive impairment or functional decline. We look forward to those results in the next few years. Hopefully, they’ll be able to show even greater benefit when moving into these early disease states in terms of delaying or even preventing cognitive decline.

Dr. LaFaver: That’s definitely very interesting to hear about. Where can people go for more information?

Dr. Wicklund: There’s a guideline on the use of lecanemab through the American Academy of Neurology. I encourage you to look at that. Also, look at the appropriate-use recommendations that were published this year in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Wonderful. With that being said, thank you so much for talking to me. I learned a lot. Thanks, everyone, for listening.
 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wicklund is senior associate consultant in the department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded October 13, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I’ll be talking today with Dr. Meredith Wicklund, senior associate consultant and behavioral neurologist specialist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Welcome, Meredith.

Meredith Wicklund, MD: Thank you.
 

Lecanemab data

Dr. LaFaver: I’m very excited about our topic. We’ll be talking about monoclonal antibody therapy against amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease – which has really been a hot topic, especially this year with the FDA approval of lecanemab – and associated questions. Could you give us a brief overview of why there has been so much research interest in this topic of anti-amyloid antibodies?

Dr. Wicklund: The pathologic component of what defines something as Alzheimer’s disease is, by definition, presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles. When it was first discovered in the 1980s that the component of the plaques was actually the amyloid protein – beta amyloid specifically – interest went right from there to developing therapies to directly target the pathology that is Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Lecanemab is the first FDA-approved disease-modifying antibody in that realm. Could you review the study data, especially as it applies to both of us in daily neurology clinic?

Dr. Wicklund: The study data from a phase 3 trial did show, for the primary outcome, that there was a 27% slowing of decline compared with individuals on placebo. It’s important to point out that this was slowing of decline. It was not stabilizing decline. It was not improving decline.

I think it’s important that we inform our patients that really, even with this therapy, there’s no prospect of stabilizing or restoring cognition or function. We do progress at a slower rate compared with individuals not on this treatment, which, given that this medication is for individuals in mild disease who have relatively preserved functional status, that can be potentially very meaningful to families.

The overall benefit was small. It essentially amounts to half a point on an 18-point scale, which is statistically significant. How much clinical meaningfulness that actually leads to is unclear. Finding clinical meaningfulness cannot be defined by a particular test. It really can only be defined on the individual level, what is meaningful to them.
 

Recommended tests

Dr. LaFaver: It is my understanding that, to qualify for lecanemab use, one needs to have a biomarker-supported diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, either via an amyloid PET scan or CSF biomarkers. What would your recommendation be for a neurologist in practice to go about these requirements?

Dr. Wicklund: Since this medication is directly targeting the amyloid pathology, and it does convey a potential risk, we want to make sure that the actual pathology is present in the individuals before we treat them and potentially expose them to risk. The best way of doing that is through either an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid testing of beta amyloid and tau.

There are several plasma-based biomarkers in development. However, I would avoid using those currently. There are still many unknowns in terms of what exactly is the right species of tau that we should be looking at, the right mechanism of the lab test, how minority status may influence it, and how different comorbidities may influence it.

I would recommend, at this time, sticking with amyloid PET or CSF testing. Given that amyloid PET is not widely available in many community practices, generally only available at academic centers, and is quite costly, many insurances do not cover it – although Medicare has a proposal to potentially start covering it – I generally go with spinal fluid testing, which is more widely available. There are several labs across the country that can process that testing in a reliable way.
 

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities

Dr. LaFaver: That’s very helpful to know. There’s been a large amount of buzz just these past couple of weeks about the blood biomarker coming up. I think, as you point out, this wasn’t the marker used in the clinical studies and there are still unknowns. Maybe it’s not quite time for clinical use, unfortunately.

We also have learned that there are significant potential risks involved. One issue that’s really been a focus is ARIA – amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Could you speak a bit about that and requirements for monitoring?

Dr. Wicklund: ARIA essentially amounts to either vasogenic edema, microhemorrhages, or superficial siderosis that develops as a result of treatment. It relates to activation of the immune system with these passive monoclonal antibodies that’s going to occur with targeting against the plaques. In the parenchyma, it will cause edema. If you have amyloid in the walls of the blood vessels, it can cause microhemorrhages.

While the term “ARIA” implies an imaging-related abnormality, and it largely is purely an imaging finding, it’s not solely an imaging-related finding. It can cause symptoms, including very serious symptoms.

Overall, with lecanemab, the incidence of ARIA within the treatment group in the phase 3 study, combined between both ARIA-E (edema/effusion) and ARIA-H (hemorrhage), was 21.5%, with about 17% being ARIA-H and about 12.5% being ARIA-E. Of course, they can occur at the same time.

Overall, in terms of people in the clinical trials, for most it was purely an imaging-related finding. About 3% developed symptomatic ARIA. Some of those were very serious symptoms, including things like seizures and need to be hospitalized. A couple of deaths have been attributed to ARIA as well.

Patients on anticoagulation

Dr. LaFaver: Along those lines, any additional words to say for people who might be on anticoagulation or might require medications for a stroke, for example?

Dr. Wicklund: While individuals on anticoagulation were allowed in the clinical trials, the current, published appropriate-use guideline is recommending against its use, as several of the serious adverse effects, including the deaths, were for the most part attributed to anticoagulation use.

When it comes to acute stroke treatment, one must carefully consider use of tPA, as two of the three deaths were tPA associated in the clinical trials. It shouldn’t necessarily be an absolute contraindication, but it can make the clinical picture very muddy. If an individual is on lecanemab and comes to the ER with acute stroke-like symptoms, it’s more likely that they’re going to be having an ARIA side effect rather than an acute stroke.

A general recommendation would be to obtain an acute head CT with a CTA, and if there is a large vessel occlusion, proceed to thrombectomy. However, if there isn’t a large vessel occlusion, if you have the ability to get a rapid MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to screen for acute stroke changes or tissue flair with acute edema changes suggestive of ARIA, that would be preferred before proceeding with thrombolysis. These are all relative contraindications and are going to depend on what’s available near you.
 

Donanemab approval pending

Dr. LaFaver: This will be an issue because the population we’re talking about is definitely at risk for stroke as well as Alzheimer’s disease. Where do you see this field going as far as amyloid antibody therapy is concerned, with another agent, donanemab, possibly getting FDA approval later this year as well?

Dr. Wicklund: We’re anticipating that donanemab will get FDA approval in the next coming months. Donanemab also targets the amyloid in the brain, although lecanemab and donanemab target different aspects of the production of the amyloid plaque. They were both shown to have roughly equal efficacy in their phase 3 clinical trials. Donanemab has the benefit of being a once-monthly infusion as opposed to twice-monthly infusions with lecanemab. It does have a slightly higher risk for ARIA compared with lecanemab.

Those are just some things to take into consideration when talking with your patients. In terms of where we’re going from here, we’re moving even earlier in terms of disease state. The lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trials were done in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. They should not be used in individuals with moderate or more advanced Alzheimer’s disease.

There are ongoing, large, national, multicenter clinical trials of both lecanemab and donanemab in a preclinical state of Alzheimer’s disease. These individuals have evidence of amyloidosis, either through PET imaging or through CSF, but are clinically asymptomatic and do not yet have any signs of cognitive impairment or functional decline. We look forward to those results in the next few years. Hopefully, they’ll be able to show even greater benefit when moving into these early disease states in terms of delaying or even preventing cognitive decline.

Dr. LaFaver: That’s definitely very interesting to hear about. Where can people go for more information?

Dr. Wicklund: There’s a guideline on the use of lecanemab through the American Academy of Neurology. I encourage you to look at that. Also, look at the appropriate-use recommendations that were published this year in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Wonderful. With that being said, thank you so much for talking to me. I learned a lot. Thanks, everyone, for listening.
 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wicklund is senior associate consultant in the department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded October 13, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I’ll be talking today with Dr. Meredith Wicklund, senior associate consultant and behavioral neurologist specialist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Welcome, Meredith.

Meredith Wicklund, MD: Thank you.
 

Lecanemab data

Dr. LaFaver: I’m very excited about our topic. We’ll be talking about monoclonal antibody therapy against amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease – which has really been a hot topic, especially this year with the FDA approval of lecanemab – and associated questions. Could you give us a brief overview of why there has been so much research interest in this topic of anti-amyloid antibodies?

Dr. Wicklund: The pathologic component of what defines something as Alzheimer’s disease is, by definition, presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles. When it was first discovered in the 1980s that the component of the plaques was actually the amyloid protein – beta amyloid specifically – interest went right from there to developing therapies to directly target the pathology that is Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Lecanemab is the first FDA-approved disease-modifying antibody in that realm. Could you review the study data, especially as it applies to both of us in daily neurology clinic?

Dr. Wicklund: The study data from a phase 3 trial did show, for the primary outcome, that there was a 27% slowing of decline compared with individuals on placebo. It’s important to point out that this was slowing of decline. It was not stabilizing decline. It was not improving decline.

I think it’s important that we inform our patients that really, even with this therapy, there’s no prospect of stabilizing or restoring cognition or function. We do progress at a slower rate compared with individuals not on this treatment, which, given that this medication is for individuals in mild disease who have relatively preserved functional status, that can be potentially very meaningful to families.

The overall benefit was small. It essentially amounts to half a point on an 18-point scale, which is statistically significant. How much clinical meaningfulness that actually leads to is unclear. Finding clinical meaningfulness cannot be defined by a particular test. It really can only be defined on the individual level, what is meaningful to them.
 

Recommended tests

Dr. LaFaver: It is my understanding that, to qualify for lecanemab use, one needs to have a biomarker-supported diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, either via an amyloid PET scan or CSF biomarkers. What would your recommendation be for a neurologist in practice to go about these requirements?

Dr. Wicklund: Since this medication is directly targeting the amyloid pathology, and it does convey a potential risk, we want to make sure that the actual pathology is present in the individuals before we treat them and potentially expose them to risk. The best way of doing that is through either an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid testing of beta amyloid and tau.

There are several plasma-based biomarkers in development. However, I would avoid using those currently. There are still many unknowns in terms of what exactly is the right species of tau that we should be looking at, the right mechanism of the lab test, how minority status may influence it, and how different comorbidities may influence it.

I would recommend, at this time, sticking with amyloid PET or CSF testing. Given that amyloid PET is not widely available in many community practices, generally only available at academic centers, and is quite costly, many insurances do not cover it – although Medicare has a proposal to potentially start covering it – I generally go with spinal fluid testing, which is more widely available. There are several labs across the country that can process that testing in a reliable way.
 

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities

Dr. LaFaver: That’s very helpful to know. There’s been a large amount of buzz just these past couple of weeks about the blood biomarker coming up. I think, as you point out, this wasn’t the marker used in the clinical studies and there are still unknowns. Maybe it’s not quite time for clinical use, unfortunately.

We also have learned that there are significant potential risks involved. One issue that’s really been a focus is ARIA – amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Could you speak a bit about that and requirements for monitoring?

Dr. Wicklund: ARIA essentially amounts to either vasogenic edema, microhemorrhages, or superficial siderosis that develops as a result of treatment. It relates to activation of the immune system with these passive monoclonal antibodies that’s going to occur with targeting against the plaques. In the parenchyma, it will cause edema. If you have amyloid in the walls of the blood vessels, it can cause microhemorrhages.

While the term “ARIA” implies an imaging-related abnormality, and it largely is purely an imaging finding, it’s not solely an imaging-related finding. It can cause symptoms, including very serious symptoms.

Overall, with lecanemab, the incidence of ARIA within the treatment group in the phase 3 study, combined between both ARIA-E (edema/effusion) and ARIA-H (hemorrhage), was 21.5%, with about 17% being ARIA-H and about 12.5% being ARIA-E. Of course, they can occur at the same time.

Overall, in terms of people in the clinical trials, for most it was purely an imaging-related finding. About 3% developed symptomatic ARIA. Some of those were very serious symptoms, including things like seizures and need to be hospitalized. A couple of deaths have been attributed to ARIA as well.

Patients on anticoagulation

Dr. LaFaver: Along those lines, any additional words to say for people who might be on anticoagulation or might require medications for a stroke, for example?

Dr. Wicklund: While individuals on anticoagulation were allowed in the clinical trials, the current, published appropriate-use guideline is recommending against its use, as several of the serious adverse effects, including the deaths, were for the most part attributed to anticoagulation use.

When it comes to acute stroke treatment, one must carefully consider use of tPA, as two of the three deaths were tPA associated in the clinical trials. It shouldn’t necessarily be an absolute contraindication, but it can make the clinical picture very muddy. If an individual is on lecanemab and comes to the ER with acute stroke-like symptoms, it’s more likely that they’re going to be having an ARIA side effect rather than an acute stroke.

A general recommendation would be to obtain an acute head CT with a CTA, and if there is a large vessel occlusion, proceed to thrombectomy. However, if there isn’t a large vessel occlusion, if you have the ability to get a rapid MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to screen for acute stroke changes or tissue flair with acute edema changes suggestive of ARIA, that would be preferred before proceeding with thrombolysis. These are all relative contraindications and are going to depend on what’s available near you.
 

Donanemab approval pending

Dr. LaFaver: This will be an issue because the population we’re talking about is definitely at risk for stroke as well as Alzheimer’s disease. Where do you see this field going as far as amyloid antibody therapy is concerned, with another agent, donanemab, possibly getting FDA approval later this year as well?

Dr. Wicklund: We’re anticipating that donanemab will get FDA approval in the next coming months. Donanemab also targets the amyloid in the brain, although lecanemab and donanemab target different aspects of the production of the amyloid plaque. They were both shown to have roughly equal efficacy in their phase 3 clinical trials. Donanemab has the benefit of being a once-monthly infusion as opposed to twice-monthly infusions with lecanemab. It does have a slightly higher risk for ARIA compared with lecanemab.

Those are just some things to take into consideration when talking with your patients. In terms of where we’re going from here, we’re moving even earlier in terms of disease state. The lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trials were done in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. They should not be used in individuals with moderate or more advanced Alzheimer’s disease.

There are ongoing, large, national, multicenter clinical trials of both lecanemab and donanemab in a preclinical state of Alzheimer’s disease. These individuals have evidence of amyloidosis, either through PET imaging or through CSF, but are clinically asymptomatic and do not yet have any signs of cognitive impairment or functional decline. We look forward to those results in the next few years. Hopefully, they’ll be able to show even greater benefit when moving into these early disease states in terms of delaying or even preventing cognitive decline.

Dr. LaFaver: That’s definitely very interesting to hear about. Where can people go for more information?

Dr. Wicklund: There’s a guideline on the use of lecanemab through the American Academy of Neurology. I encourage you to look at that. Also, look at the appropriate-use recommendations that were published this year in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Wonderful. With that being said, thank you so much for talking to me. I learned a lot. Thanks, everyone, for listening.
 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wicklund is senior associate consultant in the department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert Louis Stevenson famously said, “Wine is bottled poetry.” And I think it works quite well. I’ve had wines that are simple, elegant, and unpretentious like Emily Dickinson, and passionate and mysterious like Pablo Neruda. And I’ve had wines that are more analogous to the limerick you might read scrawled on a rest-stop bathroom wall. Those ones give me headaches.

Wine headaches are on my mind this week, not only because of the incoming tide of Beaujolais nouveau, but because of a new study which claims to have finally explained the link between wine consumption and headaches – and apparently it’s not just the alcohol.

Headaches are common, and headaches after drinking alcohol are particularly common. An interesting epidemiologic phenomenon, not yet adequately explained, is why red wine is associated with more headache than other forms of alcohol. There have been many studies fingering many suspects, from sulfites to tannins to various phenolic compounds, but none have really provided a concrete explanation for what might be going on.

A new hypothesis came to the fore on Nov. 20 in the journal Scientific Reports:

To understand the idea, first a reminder of what happens when you drink alcohol, physiologically.

Alcohol is metabolized by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the gut and then in the liver. That turns it into acetaldehyde, a toxic metabolite. In most of us, aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) quickly metabolizes acetaldehyde to the inert acetate, which can be safely excreted.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Scientific Reports

So let’s do some math. To make the numbers easy, let’s say you drank a liter of Australian wine, taking in 50 mg of quercetin glucuronide.

How much of that gets into your bloodstream? Some studies suggest a bioavailability of less than 1%, which basically means none and should probably put the quercetin hypothesis to bed. But there is some variation here too; it seems to depend on the form of quercetin you ingest.

Let’s say all 50 mg gets into your bloodstream. What blood concentration would that lead to? Well, I’ll keep the stoichiometry in the graphics and just say that if we assume that the volume of distribution of the compound is restricted to plasma alone, then you could achieve similar concentrations to what was done in petri dishes during this study.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert Louis Stevenson famously said, “Wine is bottled poetry.” And I think it works quite well. I’ve had wines that are simple, elegant, and unpretentious like Emily Dickinson, and passionate and mysterious like Pablo Neruda. And I’ve had wines that are more analogous to the limerick you might read scrawled on a rest-stop bathroom wall. Those ones give me headaches.

Wine headaches are on my mind this week, not only because of the incoming tide of Beaujolais nouveau, but because of a new study which claims to have finally explained the link between wine consumption and headaches – and apparently it’s not just the alcohol.

Headaches are common, and headaches after drinking alcohol are particularly common. An interesting epidemiologic phenomenon, not yet adequately explained, is why red wine is associated with more headache than other forms of alcohol. There have been many studies fingering many suspects, from sulfites to tannins to various phenolic compounds, but none have really provided a concrete explanation for what might be going on.

A new hypothesis came to the fore on Nov. 20 in the journal Scientific Reports:

To understand the idea, first a reminder of what happens when you drink alcohol, physiologically.

Alcohol is metabolized by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the gut and then in the liver. That turns it into acetaldehyde, a toxic metabolite. In most of us, aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) quickly metabolizes acetaldehyde to the inert acetate, which can be safely excreted.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Scientific Reports

So let’s do some math. To make the numbers easy, let’s say you drank a liter of Australian wine, taking in 50 mg of quercetin glucuronide.

How much of that gets into your bloodstream? Some studies suggest a bioavailability of less than 1%, which basically means none and should probably put the quercetin hypothesis to bed. But there is some variation here too; it seems to depend on the form of quercetin you ingest.

Let’s say all 50 mg gets into your bloodstream. What blood concentration would that lead to? Well, I’ll keep the stoichiometry in the graphics and just say that if we assume that the volume of distribution of the compound is restricted to plasma alone, then you could achieve similar concentrations to what was done in petri dishes during this study.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert Louis Stevenson famously said, “Wine is bottled poetry.” And I think it works quite well. I’ve had wines that are simple, elegant, and unpretentious like Emily Dickinson, and passionate and mysterious like Pablo Neruda. And I’ve had wines that are more analogous to the limerick you might read scrawled on a rest-stop bathroom wall. Those ones give me headaches.

Wine headaches are on my mind this week, not only because of the incoming tide of Beaujolais nouveau, but because of a new study which claims to have finally explained the link between wine consumption and headaches – and apparently it’s not just the alcohol.

Headaches are common, and headaches after drinking alcohol are particularly common. An interesting epidemiologic phenomenon, not yet adequately explained, is why red wine is associated with more headache than other forms of alcohol. There have been many studies fingering many suspects, from sulfites to tannins to various phenolic compounds, but none have really provided a concrete explanation for what might be going on.

A new hypothesis came to the fore on Nov. 20 in the journal Scientific Reports:

To understand the idea, first a reminder of what happens when you drink alcohol, physiologically.

Alcohol is metabolized by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the gut and then in the liver. That turns it into acetaldehyde, a toxic metabolite. In most of us, aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) quickly metabolizes acetaldehyde to the inert acetate, which can be safely excreted.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Scientific Reports

So let’s do some math. To make the numbers easy, let’s say you drank a liter of Australian wine, taking in 50 mg of quercetin glucuronide.

How much of that gets into your bloodstream? Some studies suggest a bioavailability of less than 1%, which basically means none and should probably put the quercetin hypothesis to bed. But there is some variation here too; it seems to depend on the form of quercetin you ingest.

Let’s say all 50 mg gets into your bloodstream. What blood concentration would that lead to? Well, I’ll keep the stoichiometry in the graphics and just say that if we assume that the volume of distribution of the compound is restricted to plasma alone, then you could achieve similar concentrations to what was done in petri dishes during this study.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce hepatic dysfunction in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) by lowering betacellulin (BTC), a protein growth factor that contributes to liver fibrosis and progression to cirrhosis and liver cancer, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have been shown to reduce hepatic dysfunction in NASH, but the molecular underpinnings of this action were elusive, researchers conducted a multiomic network analysis applied to a mouse model of Western diet–induced NASH to identify the key mechanisms involved.
• They also performed a meta-analysis of human liver cancer transcriptome data to evaluate which aspects of NASH pathogenesis leading to cancer are reversed by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

TAKEAWAY:

• BTC, an epidermal growth factor–binding protein, was consistently upregulated in liver cancer and downregulated by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in mice and humans with NASH.
• BTC promotes NASH fibrosis by activating dormant hepatic stellate cells to produce transforming growth factor beta-2 and increase collagen production. It also exacerbates toll-like receptor-dependent inflammatory processes in NASH.
• By downregulating BTC, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have therapeutic potential in NASH and could serve as a novel drug target.

IN PRACTICE:

“BTC represents a candidate master regulator inducing two most important factors (collagens and integrins) contributing to liver fibrosis and consequently promoting liver cancer,” the researchers write. “Future studies should investigate if BTC-triggered gene expression signatures can serve as biomarkers guiding personalized [omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid] therapy, as targets of new NAFLD/NASH drugs, and finally as a predictors of hepatic cancer risk in humans.”

SOURCE:

The study, with lead first author Jyothi Padiadpu, PhD, Oregon State University College of Pharmacy, Corvallis, was published online  in EMBO Molecular Medicine (2023. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202318367).

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors report no limitations. However, the findings are based on mouse model and human transcriptome data.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce hepatic dysfunction in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) by lowering betacellulin (BTC), a protein growth factor that contributes to liver fibrosis and progression to cirrhosis and liver cancer, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have been shown to reduce hepatic dysfunction in NASH, but the molecular underpinnings of this action were elusive, researchers conducted a multiomic network analysis applied to a mouse model of Western diet–induced NASH to identify the key mechanisms involved.
• They also performed a meta-analysis of human liver cancer transcriptome data to evaluate which aspects of NASH pathogenesis leading to cancer are reversed by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

TAKEAWAY:

• BTC, an epidermal growth factor–binding protein, was consistently upregulated in liver cancer and downregulated by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in mice and humans with NASH.
• BTC promotes NASH fibrosis by activating dormant hepatic stellate cells to produce transforming growth factor beta-2 and increase collagen production. It also exacerbates toll-like receptor-dependent inflammatory processes in NASH.
• By downregulating BTC, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have therapeutic potential in NASH and could serve as a novel drug target.

IN PRACTICE:

“BTC represents a candidate master regulator inducing two most important factors (collagens and integrins) contributing to liver fibrosis and consequently promoting liver cancer,” the researchers write. “Future studies should investigate if BTC-triggered gene expression signatures can serve as biomarkers guiding personalized [omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid] therapy, as targets of new NAFLD/NASH drugs, and finally as a predictors of hepatic cancer risk in humans.”

SOURCE:

The study, with lead first author Jyothi Padiadpu, PhD, Oregon State University College of Pharmacy, Corvallis, was published online  in EMBO Molecular Medicine (2023. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202318367).

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors report no limitations. However, the findings are based on mouse model and human transcriptome data.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce hepatic dysfunction in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) by lowering betacellulin (BTC), a protein growth factor that contributes to liver fibrosis and progression to cirrhosis and liver cancer, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have been shown to reduce hepatic dysfunction in NASH, but the molecular underpinnings of this action were elusive, researchers conducted a multiomic network analysis applied to a mouse model of Western diet–induced NASH to identify the key mechanisms involved.
• They also performed a meta-analysis of human liver cancer transcriptome data to evaluate which aspects of NASH pathogenesis leading to cancer are reversed by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

TAKEAWAY:

• BTC, an epidermal growth factor–binding protein, was consistently upregulated in liver cancer and downregulated by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in mice and humans with NASH.
• BTC promotes NASH fibrosis by activating dormant hepatic stellate cells to produce transforming growth factor beta-2 and increase collagen production. It also exacerbates toll-like receptor-dependent inflammatory processes in NASH.
• By downregulating BTC, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have therapeutic potential in NASH and could serve as a novel drug target.

IN PRACTICE:

“BTC represents a candidate master regulator inducing two most important factors (collagens and integrins) contributing to liver fibrosis and consequently promoting liver cancer,” the researchers write. “Future studies should investigate if BTC-triggered gene expression signatures can serve as biomarkers guiding personalized [omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid] therapy, as targets of new NAFLD/NASH drugs, and finally as a predictors of hepatic cancer risk in humans.”

SOURCE:

The study, with lead first author Jyothi Padiadpu, PhD, Oregon State University College of Pharmacy, Corvallis, was published online  in EMBO Molecular Medicine (2023. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202318367).

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors report no limitations. However, the findings are based on mouse model and human transcriptome data.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.