Enfortumab vedotin (Padcev) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is being called the new standard of care for the upfront treatment of locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following a phase 3 trial presented at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology annual meeting.

The combination soundly beat the current standard of care – platinum-based chemotherapy – with a median overall survival of 31.5 months among 442 subjects versus 16.1 months among 444 randomized to gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin, an unprecedented 53% drop in the risk of mortality (P < .00001).

The elimination of chemotherapy also meant that there were substantially fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events with the new combination.

“This is the first time we’ve managed to beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting for overall survival despite multiple previous attempts.” The 30% remission rate with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab “is not something we’ve seen before,” said lead investigator Thomas Powles, MBBS, MD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the University of London, who presented the findings.

“We welcome a new standard of care in the management of advanced, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab,” said Andrea Apolo, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and discussant on the trial, dubbed EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39.

The news overshadowed a second trial presented immediately after Dr. Powles’ that also showed improvement in overall survival versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy, CheckMate 901.

Instead of replacing chemotherapy, CheckMate 901 added nivolumab. With 304 patients randomized to each arm, nivolumab add-on led to a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 18.9 months with stand-alone gemcitabine/cisplatin, a 22% drop in the risk of mortality (P = .0171).

It’s the first time that adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy improved survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, said lead investigator Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

After decades of stagnation, Dr. Apolo said, it’s “monumental for our field” to have two trials that beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting.

However, she said that the much better survival with enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab means that the combination now “takes first place as the best first-line regimen in urothelial carcinoma.”
 

Major disruptions in the treatment paradigm

The crowning of a new first-line standard for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma means that everything else in the treatment paradigm has to shift, Dr. Apolo said, and there are many new questions that need to be answered.

Among the most pressing, should the previous first-line standard – platinum-based chemotherapy – now move to the second line and be considered the treatment of choice after progression? Also, is there still a role for the previous second-line standards, pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies, if pembrolizumab fails in the first line?

Dr. Apolo said investigators also need to figure out if there is a role for enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab in earlier-stage disease, such as muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and if the dose and duration of enfortumab vedotin can be reduced to limit its peculiar ocular and other toxicities.

Finally, “we must discuss cost,” she said. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) is expensive. “Will payers be able to afford” it?

Dr. Powles, the lead investigator on EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, said he doesn’t know how negotiations are going with payers, but that he hopes they move quickly. “We’ve seen transformative results” with the combination for even aggressive cancers in very sick people. “I think it’s going to be a challenge with patients not to talk about these data.”
 

EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 details

Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab, and the makers/marketers of enfortumab vedotin, Astellas and Seagen, said they will use EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 to seek a first-line indication for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators.

They also said the results serve as the confirmation FDA required when it gave accelerated approval to the combination in April 2023 for cisplatin-ineligible patients based on tumor response rates and response durability, according to press releases from the companies.

Pembrolizumab (P) in the trial was dosed at 200 mg on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles to a maximum of 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin (EV) was given on the first and eighth day of the cycle with no limit in the number of cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Cisplatin or carboplatin (C) in the control arm was delivered on the first day and gemcitabine (G) on the first and eighth days for up to six 3-week cycles.

Patients in both arms were split about equally between performance statuses of 0 or 1; less than 4% in each group had statuses of 2.

Echoing the overall survival (OS) results, progression-free survival (PFS) was a median of 12.5 months with EV-P versus 6.3 months with GC, a 55% drop in the risk of progression or death (P < .00001).

The results held regardless of PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility, and the presence or absence of visceral metastases.

Follow-up treatments in the trial begin to address Dr. Apolo’s questions: Almost 60% of GC patients went on to a PD-1/L1 for subsequent maintenance or progression, and almost a quarter of EV+P patients went on to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 55.9% of subjects in the EV+P group versus 69.5% in the GC arm.

The most common in the chemotherapy arm were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and nausea. The most common with EV+P were skin reactions, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and anemia,
 

CheckMate 901 details

In CheckMate 901, gemcitabine and cisplatin were administered on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles for up to 6 cycles; subjects randomized to nivolumab add-on received 360 mg on day 1 of each cycle, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.

PFS results again mirrored OS, with a median PFS of 7.9 months in the nivolumab arm versus 7.6 months with stand-alone chemotherapy, a 28% drop in the risk of progression or death (P = .0012).

Although OS and PFS benefits were statistically significant overall, they were not significant in subgroup analyses of patients 65 years and older, women, or in patients with liver metastases.

Trends in OS and PFS actually favored chemotherapy in the 40 U.S. subjects (HR OS, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-3.88).

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 61.8% with nivolumab add-on versus 51.7% with chemotherapy alone. Anemia and neutropenia were the most common in both arms, and higher in the nivolumab group.

EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 was funded by Seagen, Astellas, and Merck. CheckMate 901 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of nivolumab.

Dr. Powles reported extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, including being an advisor to and receiving research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen, and Astellas, as well as travel expenses from Merck. Among other disclosures, Dr. Heijden is an advisor to Seagen and an advisor and researcher for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Apolo is an unpaid consultant to Merck, Astellas, Seagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.

Enfortumab vedotin (Padcev) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is being called the new standard of care for the upfront treatment of locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following a phase 3 trial presented at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology annual meeting.

The combination soundly beat the current standard of care – platinum-based chemotherapy – with a median overall survival of 31.5 months among 442 subjects versus 16.1 months among 444 randomized to gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin, an unprecedented 53% drop in the risk of mortality (P < .00001).

The elimination of chemotherapy also meant that there were substantially fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events with the new combination.

“This is the first time we’ve managed to beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting for overall survival despite multiple previous attempts.” The 30% remission rate with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab “is not something we’ve seen before,” said lead investigator Thomas Powles, MBBS, MD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the University of London, who presented the findings.

“We welcome a new standard of care in the management of advanced, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab,” said Andrea Apolo, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and discussant on the trial, dubbed EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39.

The news overshadowed a second trial presented immediately after Dr. Powles’ that also showed improvement in overall survival versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy, CheckMate 901.

Instead of replacing chemotherapy, CheckMate 901 added nivolumab. With 304 patients randomized to each arm, nivolumab add-on led to a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 18.9 months with stand-alone gemcitabine/cisplatin, a 22% drop in the risk of mortality (P = .0171).

It’s the first time that adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy improved survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, said lead investigator Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

After decades of stagnation, Dr. Apolo said, it’s “monumental for our field” to have two trials that beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting.

However, she said that the much better survival with enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab means that the combination now “takes first place as the best first-line regimen in urothelial carcinoma.”
 

Major disruptions in the treatment paradigm

The crowning of a new first-line standard for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma means that everything else in the treatment paradigm has to shift, Dr. Apolo said, and there are many new questions that need to be answered.

Among the most pressing, should the previous first-line standard – platinum-based chemotherapy – now move to the second line and be considered the treatment of choice after progression? Also, is there still a role for the previous second-line standards, pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies, if pembrolizumab fails in the first line?

Dr. Apolo said investigators also need to figure out if there is a role for enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab in earlier-stage disease, such as muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and if the dose and duration of enfortumab vedotin can be reduced to limit its peculiar ocular and other toxicities.

Finally, “we must discuss cost,” she said. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) is expensive. “Will payers be able to afford” it?

Dr. Powles, the lead investigator on EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, said he doesn’t know how negotiations are going with payers, but that he hopes they move quickly. “We’ve seen transformative results” with the combination for even aggressive cancers in very sick people. “I think it’s going to be a challenge with patients not to talk about these data.”
 

EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 details

Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab, and the makers/marketers of enfortumab vedotin, Astellas and Seagen, said they will use EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 to seek a first-line indication for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators.

They also said the results serve as the confirmation FDA required when it gave accelerated approval to the combination in April 2023 for cisplatin-ineligible patients based on tumor response rates and response durability, according to press releases from the companies.

Pembrolizumab (P) in the trial was dosed at 200 mg on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles to a maximum of 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin (EV) was given on the first and eighth day of the cycle with no limit in the number of cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Cisplatin or carboplatin (C) in the control arm was delivered on the first day and gemcitabine (G) on the first and eighth days for up to six 3-week cycles.

Patients in both arms were split about equally between performance statuses of 0 or 1; less than 4% in each group had statuses of 2.

Echoing the overall survival (OS) results, progression-free survival (PFS) was a median of 12.5 months with EV-P versus 6.3 months with GC, a 55% drop in the risk of progression or death (P < .00001).

The results held regardless of PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility, and the presence or absence of visceral metastases.

Follow-up treatments in the trial begin to address Dr. Apolo’s questions: Almost 60% of GC patients went on to a PD-1/L1 for subsequent maintenance or progression, and almost a quarter of EV+P patients went on to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 55.9% of subjects in the EV+P group versus 69.5% in the GC arm.

The most common in the chemotherapy arm were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and nausea. The most common with EV+P were skin reactions, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and anemia,
 

CheckMate 901 details

In CheckMate 901, gemcitabine and cisplatin were administered on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles for up to 6 cycles; subjects randomized to nivolumab add-on received 360 mg on day 1 of each cycle, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.

PFS results again mirrored OS, with a median PFS of 7.9 months in the nivolumab arm versus 7.6 months with stand-alone chemotherapy, a 28% drop in the risk of progression or death (P = .0012).

Although OS and PFS benefits were statistically significant overall, they were not significant in subgroup analyses of patients 65 years and older, women, or in patients with liver metastases.

Trends in OS and PFS actually favored chemotherapy in the 40 U.S. subjects (HR OS, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-3.88).

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 61.8% with nivolumab add-on versus 51.7% with chemotherapy alone. Anemia and neutropenia were the most common in both arms, and higher in the nivolumab group.

EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 was funded by Seagen, Astellas, and Merck. CheckMate 901 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of nivolumab.

Dr. Powles reported extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, including being an advisor to and receiving research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen, and Astellas, as well as travel expenses from Merck. Among other disclosures, Dr. Heijden is an advisor to Seagen and an advisor and researcher for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Apolo is an unpaid consultant to Merck, Astellas, Seagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.

Enfortumab vedotin (Padcev) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is being called the new standard of care for the upfront treatment of locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following a phase 3 trial presented at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology annual meeting.

The combination soundly beat the current standard of care – platinum-based chemotherapy – with a median overall survival of 31.5 months among 442 subjects versus 16.1 months among 444 randomized to gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin, an unprecedented 53% drop in the risk of mortality (P < .00001).

The elimination of chemotherapy also meant that there were substantially fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events with the new combination.

“This is the first time we’ve managed to beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting for overall survival despite multiple previous attempts.” The 30% remission rate with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab “is not something we’ve seen before,” said lead investigator Thomas Powles, MBBS, MD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the University of London, who presented the findings.

“We welcome a new standard of care in the management of advanced, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab,” said Andrea Apolo, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and discussant on the trial, dubbed EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39.

The news overshadowed a second trial presented immediately after Dr. Powles’ that also showed improvement in overall survival versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy, CheckMate 901.

Instead of replacing chemotherapy, CheckMate 901 added nivolumab. With 304 patients randomized to each arm, nivolumab add-on led to a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 18.9 months with stand-alone gemcitabine/cisplatin, a 22% drop in the risk of mortality (P = .0171).

It’s the first time that adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy improved survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, said lead investigator Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

After decades of stagnation, Dr. Apolo said, it’s “monumental for our field” to have two trials that beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting.

However, she said that the much better survival with enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab means that the combination now “takes first place as the best first-line regimen in urothelial carcinoma.”
 

Major disruptions in the treatment paradigm

The crowning of a new first-line standard for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma means that everything else in the treatment paradigm has to shift, Dr. Apolo said, and there are many new questions that need to be answered.

Among the most pressing, should the previous first-line standard – platinum-based chemotherapy – now move to the second line and be considered the treatment of choice after progression? Also, is there still a role for the previous second-line standards, pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies, if pembrolizumab fails in the first line?

Dr. Apolo said investigators also need to figure out if there is a role for enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab in earlier-stage disease, such as muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and if the dose and duration of enfortumab vedotin can be reduced to limit its peculiar ocular and other toxicities.

Finally, “we must discuss cost,” she said. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) is expensive. “Will payers be able to afford” it?

Dr. Powles, the lead investigator on EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, said he doesn’t know how negotiations are going with payers, but that he hopes they move quickly. “We’ve seen transformative results” with the combination for even aggressive cancers in very sick people. “I think it’s going to be a challenge with patients not to talk about these data.”
 

EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 details

Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab, and the makers/marketers of enfortumab vedotin, Astellas and Seagen, said they will use EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 to seek a first-line indication for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators.

They also said the results serve as the confirmation FDA required when it gave accelerated approval to the combination in April 2023 for cisplatin-ineligible patients based on tumor response rates and response durability, according to press releases from the companies.

Pembrolizumab (P) in the trial was dosed at 200 mg on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles to a maximum of 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin (EV) was given on the first and eighth day of the cycle with no limit in the number of cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Cisplatin or carboplatin (C) in the control arm was delivered on the first day and gemcitabine (G) on the first and eighth days for up to six 3-week cycles.

Patients in both arms were split about equally between performance statuses of 0 or 1; less than 4% in each group had statuses of 2.

Echoing the overall survival (OS) results, progression-free survival (PFS) was a median of 12.5 months with EV-P versus 6.3 months with GC, a 55% drop in the risk of progression or death (P < .00001).

The results held regardless of PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility, and the presence or absence of visceral metastases.

Follow-up treatments in the trial begin to address Dr. Apolo’s questions: Almost 60% of GC patients went on to a PD-1/L1 for subsequent maintenance or progression, and almost a quarter of EV+P patients went on to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 55.9% of subjects in the EV+P group versus 69.5% in the GC arm.

The most common in the chemotherapy arm were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and nausea. The most common with EV+P were skin reactions, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and anemia,
 

CheckMate 901 details

In CheckMate 901, gemcitabine and cisplatin were administered on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles for up to 6 cycles; subjects randomized to nivolumab add-on received 360 mg on day 1 of each cycle, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.

PFS results again mirrored OS, with a median PFS of 7.9 months in the nivolumab arm versus 7.6 months with stand-alone chemotherapy, a 28% drop in the risk of progression or death (P = .0012).

Although OS and PFS benefits were statistically significant overall, they were not significant in subgroup analyses of patients 65 years and older, women, or in patients with liver metastases.

Trends in OS and PFS actually favored chemotherapy in the 40 U.S. subjects (HR OS, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-3.88).

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 61.8% with nivolumab add-on versus 51.7% with chemotherapy alone. Anemia and neutropenia were the most common in both arms, and higher in the nivolumab group.

EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 was funded by Seagen, Astellas, and Merck. CheckMate 901 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of nivolumab.

Dr. Powles reported extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, including being an advisor to and receiving research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen, and Astellas, as well as travel expenses from Merck. Among other disclosures, Dr. Heijden is an advisor to Seagen and an advisor and researcher for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Apolo is an unpaid consultant to Merck, Astellas, Seagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.

There is an urgent need to raise global awareness about the direct link between alcohol consumption and cancer risk.

That message was delivered by Isabelle Soerjomataram, PhD, with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France, at a session devoted to alcohol and cancer at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“Global awareness about the link between alcohol and cancer continues to be very low,” Dr. Soerjomataram told the audience. “Health professionals – oncologists, nurses, medical doctors, GPs – have an important role in increasing awareness and bringing this knowledge to people, which may lead to reduced consumption.”

Session chair Gilberto Morgan, MD, medical oncologist, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, agreed.

Dr. Morgan noted that healthcare professionals tend to downplay their influence over patients’ drinking habits and often don’t address these behaviors.

But that needs to change.

“We have absolutely no problem asking patients if they take supplements or vitamins or if they’re eating [healthy],” Dr. Morgan said. “So, what is the difference? Why not recommend that they cut down their alcohol intake and leave it up to everybody’s personal choice to do it or not?”

In the session, Dr. Soerjomataram highlighted the global statistics on alcohol use. IARC data show, for instance, that nearly half (46%) of the world’s population consumes alcohol, with rates higher in men (54%) than women (38%).

How much are people drinking?

Globally, on average, the amount comes to about six liters of pure ethanol per year per drinker, or about one wine bottle per week. However, consumption patterns vary widely by country. In France, people consume about 12 liters per year or about two wine bottles per week.

Dr. Soerjomataram stressed the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

According to IARC data, heavy drinking – defined as more than 60 g/day or about six daily drinks – accounts for 47% of the alcohol-attributable cancers. Risky drinking – between 20 and 60 g/day – accounts for 29%, she explained, while moderate drinking – less than 20 g/day or about two daily drinks – accounts for roughly 14% of cases of alcohol-attributable cancers.

Globally, alcohol intake accounted for 4% of all cancers diagnosed in 2020, according to a 2021 analysis by IARC. 

In the United Kingdom alone, “alcohol drinking caused nearly 17,000 cases of cancer in 2020,” Dr. Soerjomataram said, and breast cancer made up almost one in four of those new cases.

In addition to breast cancer, six other cancer types – oral cavity, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, colorectal, and liver cancer – can be attributed to alcohol consumption, and emerging evidence suggests stomach and pancreatic cancer may be as well.

The good news, said Dr. Soerjomataram, is that long-term trends show declines in alcohol drinking in many countries, including the high wine-producing countries of France and Italy, where large reductions in consumption have been noted since the peak of intake in the 1920s.

“If it’s possible in these countries, I can imagine it’s possible elsewhere,” said Dr. Soerjomataram. 

Dr. Soerjomataram and Dr. Morgan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is an urgent need to raise global awareness about the direct link between alcohol consumption and cancer risk.

That message was delivered by Isabelle Soerjomataram, PhD, with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France, at a session devoted to alcohol and cancer at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“Global awareness about the link between alcohol and cancer continues to be very low,” Dr. Soerjomataram told the audience. “Health professionals – oncologists, nurses, medical doctors, GPs – have an important role in increasing awareness and bringing this knowledge to people, which may lead to reduced consumption.”

Session chair Gilberto Morgan, MD, medical oncologist, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, agreed.

Dr. Morgan noted that healthcare professionals tend to downplay their influence over patients’ drinking habits and often don’t address these behaviors.

But that needs to change.

“We have absolutely no problem asking patients if they take supplements or vitamins or if they’re eating [healthy],” Dr. Morgan said. “So, what is the difference? Why not recommend that they cut down their alcohol intake and leave it up to everybody’s personal choice to do it or not?”

In the session, Dr. Soerjomataram highlighted the global statistics on alcohol use. IARC data show, for instance, that nearly half (46%) of the world’s population consumes alcohol, with rates higher in men (54%) than women (38%).

How much are people drinking?

Globally, on average, the amount comes to about six liters of pure ethanol per year per drinker, or about one wine bottle per week. However, consumption patterns vary widely by country. In France, people consume about 12 liters per year or about two wine bottles per week.

Dr. Soerjomataram stressed the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

According to IARC data, heavy drinking – defined as more than 60 g/day or about six daily drinks – accounts for 47% of the alcohol-attributable cancers. Risky drinking – between 20 and 60 g/day – accounts for 29%, she explained, while moderate drinking – less than 20 g/day or about two daily drinks – accounts for roughly 14% of cases of alcohol-attributable cancers.

Globally, alcohol intake accounted for 4% of all cancers diagnosed in 2020, according to a 2021 analysis by IARC. 

In the United Kingdom alone, “alcohol drinking caused nearly 17,000 cases of cancer in 2020,” Dr. Soerjomataram said, and breast cancer made up almost one in four of those new cases.

In addition to breast cancer, six other cancer types – oral cavity, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, colorectal, and liver cancer – can be attributed to alcohol consumption, and emerging evidence suggests stomach and pancreatic cancer may be as well.

The good news, said Dr. Soerjomataram, is that long-term trends show declines in alcohol drinking in many countries, including the high wine-producing countries of France and Italy, where large reductions in consumption have been noted since the peak of intake in the 1920s.

“If it’s possible in these countries, I can imagine it’s possible elsewhere,” said Dr. Soerjomataram. 

Dr. Soerjomataram and Dr. Morgan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is an urgent need to raise global awareness about the direct link between alcohol consumption and cancer risk.

That message was delivered by Isabelle Soerjomataram, PhD, with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France, at a session devoted to alcohol and cancer at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

“Global awareness about the link between alcohol and cancer continues to be very low,” Dr. Soerjomataram told the audience. “Health professionals – oncologists, nurses, medical doctors, GPs – have an important role in increasing awareness and bringing this knowledge to people, which may lead to reduced consumption.”

Session chair Gilberto Morgan, MD, medical oncologist, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, agreed.

Dr. Morgan noted that healthcare professionals tend to downplay their influence over patients’ drinking habits and often don’t address these behaviors.

But that needs to change.

“We have absolutely no problem asking patients if they take supplements or vitamins or if they’re eating [healthy],” Dr. Morgan said. “So, what is the difference? Why not recommend that they cut down their alcohol intake and leave it up to everybody’s personal choice to do it or not?”

In the session, Dr. Soerjomataram highlighted the global statistics on alcohol use. IARC data show, for instance, that nearly half (46%) of the world’s population consumes alcohol, with rates higher in men (54%) than women (38%).

How much are people drinking?

Globally, on average, the amount comes to about six liters of pure ethanol per year per drinker, or about one wine bottle per week. However, consumption patterns vary widely by country. In France, people consume about 12 liters per year or about two wine bottles per week.

Dr. Soerjomataram stressed the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

According to IARC data, heavy drinking – defined as more than 60 g/day or about six daily drinks – accounts for 47% of the alcohol-attributable cancers. Risky drinking – between 20 and 60 g/day – accounts for 29%, she explained, while moderate drinking – less than 20 g/day or about two daily drinks – accounts for roughly 14% of cases of alcohol-attributable cancers.

Globally, alcohol intake accounted for 4% of all cancers diagnosed in 2020, according to a 2021 analysis by IARC. 

In the United Kingdom alone, “alcohol drinking caused nearly 17,000 cases of cancer in 2020,” Dr. Soerjomataram said, and breast cancer made up almost one in four of those new cases.

In addition to breast cancer, six other cancer types – oral cavity, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, colorectal, and liver cancer – can be attributed to alcohol consumption, and emerging evidence suggests stomach and pancreatic cancer may be as well.

The good news, said Dr. Soerjomataram, is that long-term trends show declines in alcohol drinking in many countries, including the high wine-producing countries of France and Italy, where large reductions in consumption have been noted since the peak of intake in the 1920s.

“If it’s possible in these countries, I can imagine it’s possible elsewhere,” said Dr. Soerjomataram. 

Dr. Soerjomataram and Dr. Morgan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

As some of you may know, I do a fair amount of clinical research developing and evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) models, particularly machine learning algorithms that predict certain outcomes.

A thorny issue that comes up as algorithms have gotten more complicated is “explainability.” The problem is that AI can be a black box. Even if you have a model that is very accurate at predicting death, clinicians don’t trust it unless you can explain how it makes its predictions – how it works. “It just works” is not good enough to build trust.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

JAMA

JAMA

JAMA

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

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available now.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

As some of you may know, I do a fair amount of clinical research developing and evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) models, particularly machine learning algorithms that predict certain outcomes.

A thorny issue that comes up as algorithms have gotten more complicated is “explainability.” The problem is that AI can be a black box. Even if you have a model that is very accurate at predicting death, clinicians don’t trust it unless you can explain how it makes its predictions – how it works. “It just works” is not good enough to build trust.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

JAMA

JAMA

JAMA

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

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available now.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

As some of you may know, I do a fair amount of clinical research developing and evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) models, particularly machine learning algorithms that predict certain outcomes.

A thorny issue that comes up as algorithms have gotten more complicated is “explainability.” The problem is that AI can be a black box. Even if you have a model that is very accurate at predicting death, clinicians don’t trust it unless you can explain how it makes its predictions – how it works. “It just works” is not good enough to build trust.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

JAMA

JAMA

JAMA

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

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available now.

MILAN – A specially adapted frame to support individuals with walking and balance disabilities could help people with multiple sclerosis engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity and improve their physical function, a pilot study suggests.

“Frame running” uses a three-wheeled frame with a saddle and body supports but no pedals to allow individuals with disabilities and balance impairments to walk and run under their own power.

Eight individuals with multiple sclerosis and moderate to severe walking impairments took part in a 12-week frame running intervention, which improved both objective physical performance and patient-reported outcomes measures.

“Frame running presents a feasible and enjoyable exercise option for people with multiple sclerosis,” lead author Gary McEwan, PhD, research fellow at the Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, and colleagues conclude.

It may, they add, “have potential to improve measures of physical function and the ability to perform mobility-related daily activities.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
 

Dearth of exercise opportunities

The authors note regular physical activity and exercise are “amongst the most important adjunct therapies for managing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis,” and yet people with the disease are significantly less physically active than the general population.

This is particularly the case for individuals at the upper end of the disability spectrum, they continue, and may reflect the “relative dearth of exercise opportunities that are suitable for those with more severe mobility impairments.”

In recent years, frame running has emerged as a form of exercise that allows individuals with walking difficulties to engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity in a safe manner, but its feasibility in multiple sclerosis has not been investigated.

The researchers recruited people with multiple sclerosis who had moderate to severe walking impairments to take part in a 12-week frame running intervention, comprising a 1-hour session every week.

The 6-minute frame running test (6MFRT) and an adapted shuttle frame running test (SFRT) were used to assess physical function at baseline and after the intervention. Recruitment, retention, and attendance rates were recorded.

The participants also completed a series of patient-reported outcome measures, alongside the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, to calculate self-perceived abilities in activities of daily living, and semistructured interviews to capture their experiences of the intervention.
 

The camaraderie of physical activity

With six females and two males enrolled in the study, the team reported that the recruitment rate was 47.1%, the retention rate was 75%, and attendance was 86.7%. No adverse events were reported, they note.

The results indicate there were improvements in performance on the physical measures, with small effect sizes on both the 6MFRT (d = 0.37) and the SFRT (d = 0.30).

There were also improvements on the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (d = 0.27), the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (d = 0.20), and the Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (d = 0.46), again with small effect sizes.

A medium effect size was seen for improvements on the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (d = 0.73), and 80% of the participants reported “changes in performance and in satisfaction with their activities of daily living,” the team says.

The qualitative data also suggested the patients found frame running to be “safe and enjoyable,” with key highlights being the “social aspect and camaraderie developed amongst participants.”
 

Mix of physical interventions

Approached for comment, Robert Motl, MD, professor of kinesiology and nutrition, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, said it “makes a lot of sense” that frame running can improve walking-related outcomes.

He told this news organization that, “for people who have balance-related problems, using their legs in that rhythmical way could really have some great benefits for walking.”

However, Dr. Motl said he is a “little more skeptical about the benefits for balance, because to improve balance you have to be doing something that challenges upright posture.”

With the frame, “I don’t think you’re having to regulate upright posture while you’re doing that intervention, because you have stability with three points and the ground,” he said. “So, I wonder a little bit about that as an outcome.”

Dr. Motl nevertheless underlined that walking can certainly improve physical activity, “and all the other things like vascular function, cardiovascular fitness,” and so on.

Consequently, frame running “could be part of the mix of things for people who are having a disability, particularly individuals who have some balance dysfunction and [for whom] ambulating might put them at risk of falling.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society UK. The study authors and Dr. Modl report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – A specially adapted frame to support individuals with walking and balance disabilities could help people with multiple sclerosis engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity and improve their physical function, a pilot study suggests.

“Frame running” uses a three-wheeled frame with a saddle and body supports but no pedals to allow individuals with disabilities and balance impairments to walk and run under their own power.

Eight individuals with multiple sclerosis and moderate to severe walking impairments took part in a 12-week frame running intervention, which improved both objective physical performance and patient-reported outcomes measures.

“Frame running presents a feasible and enjoyable exercise option for people with multiple sclerosis,” lead author Gary McEwan, PhD, research fellow at the Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, and colleagues conclude.

It may, they add, “have potential to improve measures of physical function and the ability to perform mobility-related daily activities.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
 

Dearth of exercise opportunities

The authors note regular physical activity and exercise are “amongst the most important adjunct therapies for managing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis,” and yet people with the disease are significantly less physically active than the general population.

This is particularly the case for individuals at the upper end of the disability spectrum, they continue, and may reflect the “relative dearth of exercise opportunities that are suitable for those with more severe mobility impairments.”

In recent years, frame running has emerged as a form of exercise that allows individuals with walking difficulties to engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity in a safe manner, but its feasibility in multiple sclerosis has not been investigated.

The researchers recruited people with multiple sclerosis who had moderate to severe walking impairments to take part in a 12-week frame running intervention, comprising a 1-hour session every week.

The 6-minute frame running test (6MFRT) and an adapted shuttle frame running test (SFRT) were used to assess physical function at baseline and after the intervention. Recruitment, retention, and attendance rates were recorded.

The participants also completed a series of patient-reported outcome measures, alongside the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, to calculate self-perceived abilities in activities of daily living, and semistructured interviews to capture their experiences of the intervention.
 

The camaraderie of physical activity

With six females and two males enrolled in the study, the team reported that the recruitment rate was 47.1%, the retention rate was 75%, and attendance was 86.7%. No adverse events were reported, they note.

The results indicate there were improvements in performance on the physical measures, with small effect sizes on both the 6MFRT (d = 0.37) and the SFRT (d = 0.30).

There were also improvements on the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (d = 0.27), the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (d = 0.20), and the Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (d = 0.46), again with small effect sizes.

A medium effect size was seen for improvements on the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (d = 0.73), and 80% of the participants reported “changes in performance and in satisfaction with their activities of daily living,” the team says.

The qualitative data also suggested the patients found frame running to be “safe and enjoyable,” with key highlights being the “social aspect and camaraderie developed amongst participants.”
 

Mix of physical interventions

Approached for comment, Robert Motl, MD, professor of kinesiology and nutrition, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, said it “makes a lot of sense” that frame running can improve walking-related outcomes.

He told this news organization that, “for people who have balance-related problems, using their legs in that rhythmical way could really have some great benefits for walking.”

However, Dr. Motl said he is a “little more skeptical about the benefits for balance, because to improve balance you have to be doing something that challenges upright posture.”

With the frame, “I don’t think you’re having to regulate upright posture while you’re doing that intervention, because you have stability with three points and the ground,” he said. “So, I wonder a little bit about that as an outcome.”

Dr. Motl nevertheless underlined that walking can certainly improve physical activity, “and all the other things like vascular function, cardiovascular fitness,” and so on.

Consequently, frame running “could be part of the mix of things for people who are having a disability, particularly individuals who have some balance dysfunction and [for whom] ambulating might put them at risk of falling.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society UK. The study authors and Dr. Modl report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – A specially adapted frame to support individuals with walking and balance disabilities could help people with multiple sclerosis engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity and improve their physical function, a pilot study suggests.

“Frame running” uses a three-wheeled frame with a saddle and body supports but no pedals to allow individuals with disabilities and balance impairments to walk and run under their own power.

Eight individuals with multiple sclerosis and moderate to severe walking impairments took part in a 12-week frame running intervention, which improved both objective physical performance and patient-reported outcomes measures.

“Frame running presents a feasible and enjoyable exercise option for people with multiple sclerosis,” lead author Gary McEwan, PhD, research fellow at the Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, and colleagues conclude.

It may, they add, “have potential to improve measures of physical function and the ability to perform mobility-related daily activities.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
 

Dearth of exercise opportunities

The authors note regular physical activity and exercise are “amongst the most important adjunct therapies for managing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis,” and yet people with the disease are significantly less physically active than the general population.

This is particularly the case for individuals at the upper end of the disability spectrum, they continue, and may reflect the “relative dearth of exercise opportunities that are suitable for those with more severe mobility impairments.”

In recent years, frame running has emerged as a form of exercise that allows individuals with walking difficulties to engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity in a safe manner, but its feasibility in multiple sclerosis has not been investigated.

The researchers recruited people with multiple sclerosis who had moderate to severe walking impairments to take part in a 12-week frame running intervention, comprising a 1-hour session every week.

The 6-minute frame running test (6MFRT) and an adapted shuttle frame running test (SFRT) were used to assess physical function at baseline and after the intervention. Recruitment, retention, and attendance rates were recorded.

The participants also completed a series of patient-reported outcome measures, alongside the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, to calculate self-perceived abilities in activities of daily living, and semistructured interviews to capture their experiences of the intervention.
 

The camaraderie of physical activity

With six females and two males enrolled in the study, the team reported that the recruitment rate was 47.1%, the retention rate was 75%, and attendance was 86.7%. No adverse events were reported, they note.

The results indicate there were improvements in performance on the physical measures, with small effect sizes on both the 6MFRT (d = 0.37) and the SFRT (d = 0.30).

There were also improvements on the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (d = 0.27), the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (d = 0.20), and the Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (d = 0.46), again with small effect sizes.

A medium effect size was seen for improvements on the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (d = 0.73), and 80% of the participants reported “changes in performance and in satisfaction with their activities of daily living,” the team says.

The qualitative data also suggested the patients found frame running to be “safe and enjoyable,” with key highlights being the “social aspect and camaraderie developed amongst participants.”
 

Mix of physical interventions

Approached for comment, Robert Motl, MD, professor of kinesiology and nutrition, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, said it “makes a lot of sense” that frame running can improve walking-related outcomes.

He told this news organization that, “for people who have balance-related problems, using their legs in that rhythmical way could really have some great benefits for walking.”

However, Dr. Motl said he is a “little more skeptical about the benefits for balance, because to improve balance you have to be doing something that challenges upright posture.”

With the frame, “I don’t think you’re having to regulate upright posture while you’re doing that intervention, because you have stability with three points and the ground,” he said. “So, I wonder a little bit about that as an outcome.”

Dr. Motl nevertheless underlined that walking can certainly improve physical activity, “and all the other things like vascular function, cardiovascular fitness,” and so on.

Consequently, frame running “could be part of the mix of things for people who are having a disability, particularly individuals who have some balance dysfunction and [for whom] ambulating might put them at risk of falling.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society UK. The study authors and Dr. Modl report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Challenging conventional wisdom, new research suggests that hitting the snooze button does not lead to cognitive impairment on waking and may actually provide cognitive benefits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did two studies to determine why intermittent morning alarms are used and how they affect sleep, cognition, cortisol, and mood.
• Study 1 was a survey of 1,732 healthy adults (mean age 34 years; 66% women) designed to elucidate the characteristics of people who snooze and why they choose to delay their waking in this way.
• Study 2 was a within-subject polysomnography study of 31 healthy habitual snoozers (mean age 27 years; 18 women) designed to explore the acute effects of snoozing on sleep architecture, sleepiness, cognitive ability, mood, and cortisol awakening response.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 69% reported using the snooze button or setting multiple alarms at least sometimes, most often on workdays (71%), with an average snooze time per morning of 22 minutes.
• Sleep quality did not differ between snoozers and nonsnoozers, but snoozers were more likely to feel mentally drowsy on waking (odds ratio, 3.0; P < .001) and had slightly shorter sleep time on workdays (13 minutes).
• In the polysomnography study, compared with waking up abruptly, 30 minutes of snoozing in the morning improved or did not affect performance on standard cognitive tests completed directly on final awakening.
• Snoozing resulted in about 6 minutes of lost sleep, but it prevented awakening from slow-wave sleep and had no clear effects on the cortisol awakening response, morning sleepiness, mood, or overnight sleep architecture.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that there is no reason to stop snoozing in the morning if you enjoy it, at least not for snooze times around 30 minutes. In fact, it may even help those with morning drowsiness to be slightly more awake once they get up,” corresponding author Tina Sundelin, PhD, of Stockholm University, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study 1 focused on waking preferences in a convenience sample of adults. Study 2 included only habitual snoozers making it difficult to generalize the findings to people who don’t usually snooze. The study investigated only the effect of 30 minutes of snoozing on the studied parameters. It’s possible that shorter or longer snooze times have different cognitive effects.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by the Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, and a grant from Vetenskapsrådet. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Challenging conventional wisdom, new research suggests that hitting the snooze button does not lead to cognitive impairment on waking and may actually provide cognitive benefits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did two studies to determine why intermittent morning alarms are used and how they affect sleep, cognition, cortisol, and mood.
• Study 1 was a survey of 1,732 healthy adults (mean age 34 years; 66% women) designed to elucidate the characteristics of people who snooze and why they choose to delay their waking in this way.
• Study 2 was a within-subject polysomnography study of 31 healthy habitual snoozers (mean age 27 years; 18 women) designed to explore the acute effects of snoozing on sleep architecture, sleepiness, cognitive ability, mood, and cortisol awakening response.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 69% reported using the snooze button or setting multiple alarms at least sometimes, most often on workdays (71%), with an average snooze time per morning of 22 minutes.
• Sleep quality did not differ between snoozers and nonsnoozers, but snoozers were more likely to feel mentally drowsy on waking (odds ratio, 3.0; P < .001) and had slightly shorter sleep time on workdays (13 minutes).
• In the polysomnography study, compared with waking up abruptly, 30 minutes of snoozing in the morning improved or did not affect performance on standard cognitive tests completed directly on final awakening.
• Snoozing resulted in about 6 minutes of lost sleep, but it prevented awakening from slow-wave sleep and had no clear effects on the cortisol awakening response, morning sleepiness, mood, or overnight sleep architecture.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that there is no reason to stop snoozing in the morning if you enjoy it, at least not for snooze times around 30 minutes. In fact, it may even help those with morning drowsiness to be slightly more awake once they get up,” corresponding author Tina Sundelin, PhD, of Stockholm University, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study 1 focused on waking preferences in a convenience sample of adults. Study 2 included only habitual snoozers making it difficult to generalize the findings to people who don’t usually snooze. The study investigated only the effect of 30 minutes of snoozing on the studied parameters. It’s possible that shorter or longer snooze times have different cognitive effects.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by the Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, and a grant from Vetenskapsrådet. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Challenging conventional wisdom, new research suggests that hitting the snooze button does not lead to cognitive impairment on waking and may actually provide cognitive benefits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did two studies to determine why intermittent morning alarms are used and how they affect sleep, cognition, cortisol, and mood.
• Study 1 was a survey of 1,732 healthy adults (mean age 34 years; 66% women) designed to elucidate the characteristics of people who snooze and why they choose to delay their waking in this way.
• Study 2 was a within-subject polysomnography study of 31 healthy habitual snoozers (mean age 27 years; 18 women) designed to explore the acute effects of snoozing on sleep architecture, sleepiness, cognitive ability, mood, and cortisol awakening response.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 69% reported using the snooze button or setting multiple alarms at least sometimes, most often on workdays (71%), with an average snooze time per morning of 22 minutes.
• Sleep quality did not differ between snoozers and nonsnoozers, but snoozers were more likely to feel mentally drowsy on waking (odds ratio, 3.0; P < .001) and had slightly shorter sleep time on workdays (13 minutes).
• In the polysomnography study, compared with waking up abruptly, 30 minutes of snoozing in the morning improved or did not affect performance on standard cognitive tests completed directly on final awakening.
• Snoozing resulted in about 6 minutes of lost sleep, but it prevented awakening from slow-wave sleep and had no clear effects on the cortisol awakening response, morning sleepiness, mood, or overnight sleep architecture.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that there is no reason to stop snoozing in the morning if you enjoy it, at least not for snooze times around 30 minutes. In fact, it may even help those with morning drowsiness to be slightly more awake once they get up,” corresponding author Tina Sundelin, PhD, of Stockholm University, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study 1 focused on waking preferences in a convenience sample of adults. Study 2 included only habitual snoozers making it difficult to generalize the findings to people who don’t usually snooze. The study investigated only the effect of 30 minutes of snoozing on the studied parameters. It’s possible that shorter or longer snooze times have different cognitive effects.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by the Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, and a grant from Vetenskapsrådet. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

More physical activity in late childhood is associated with an increase in brain volume in regions involved in cognition, emotion, learning, and psychiatric illness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data on 1,088 children (52% girls) in the Generation R Study, a 4-year longitudinal population-based cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• At age 10 years, children and their caregivers reported on children’s level of physical activity and sports involvement.
• Investigators measured changes in participants’ brain volume via MRI at ages 10 and 14 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every 1 additional hour per week in sports participation was associated with a 64.0-mm³ larger volume change in subcortical gray matter (P = .04).
• Every 1 additional hour per week in total physical activity was associated with a 154.0-mm³ larger volume change in total white matter (P = .02).
• Total physical activity reported by any source (P = .03) and child reports of outdoor play (P = .01) were associated with increased amygdala volume over time.
• Total physical activity reported by the children was associated with hippocampal volume increases (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity is one of the most promising environmental exposures favorably influencing health across the lifespan,” the authors write. “This study adds to prior literature by highlighting the neurodevelopmental benefits physical activity may have on the architecture of the amygdala and hippocampus.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fernando Estévez-López, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, the SPORT Research Group and CERNEP Research Center at the University of Almería (Spain), and Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only accounted for confounders at baseline, does not establish causation, and utilized unvalidated questionnaires to gather information on physical activity.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors report receiving financial support, but there was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Estévez-López reports no relevant financial conflicts. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

More physical activity in late childhood is associated with an increase in brain volume in regions involved in cognition, emotion, learning, and psychiatric illness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data on 1,088 children (52% girls) in the Generation R Study, a 4-year longitudinal population-based cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• At age 10 years, children and their caregivers reported on children’s level of physical activity and sports involvement.
• Investigators measured changes in participants’ brain volume via MRI at ages 10 and 14 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every 1 additional hour per week in sports participation was associated with a 64.0-mm³ larger volume change in subcortical gray matter (P = .04).
• Every 1 additional hour per week in total physical activity was associated with a 154.0-mm³ larger volume change in total white matter (P = .02).
• Total physical activity reported by any source (P = .03) and child reports of outdoor play (P = .01) were associated with increased amygdala volume over time.
• Total physical activity reported by the children was associated with hippocampal volume increases (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity is one of the most promising environmental exposures favorably influencing health across the lifespan,” the authors write. “This study adds to prior literature by highlighting the neurodevelopmental benefits physical activity may have on the architecture of the amygdala and hippocampus.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fernando Estévez-López, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, the SPORT Research Group and CERNEP Research Center at the University of Almería (Spain), and Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only accounted for confounders at baseline, does not establish causation, and utilized unvalidated questionnaires to gather information on physical activity.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors report receiving financial support, but there was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Estévez-López reports no relevant financial conflicts. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

More physical activity in late childhood is associated with an increase in brain volume in regions involved in cognition, emotion, learning, and psychiatric illness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data on 1,088 children (52% girls) in the Generation R Study, a 4-year longitudinal population-based cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• At age 10 years, children and their caregivers reported on children’s level of physical activity and sports involvement.
• Investigators measured changes in participants’ brain volume via MRI at ages 10 and 14 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every 1 additional hour per week in sports participation was associated with a 64.0-mm³ larger volume change in subcortical gray matter (P = .04).
• Every 1 additional hour per week in total physical activity was associated with a 154.0-mm³ larger volume change in total white matter (P = .02).
• Total physical activity reported by any source (P = .03) and child reports of outdoor play (P = .01) were associated with increased amygdala volume over time.
• Total physical activity reported by the children was associated with hippocampal volume increases (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity is one of the most promising environmental exposures favorably influencing health across the lifespan,” the authors write. “This study adds to prior literature by highlighting the neurodevelopmental benefits physical activity may have on the architecture of the amygdala and hippocampus.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fernando Estévez-López, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, the SPORT Research Group and CERNEP Research Center at the University of Almería (Spain), and Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only accounted for confounders at baseline, does not establish causation, and utilized unvalidated questionnaires to gather information on physical activity.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors report receiving financial support, but there was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Estévez-López reports no relevant financial conflicts. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Acute stress in peri- and postmenopausal women is associated with more depressive symptoms, while chronic stress showed greater association with memory and concentration problems, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

“This work suggests that markers of hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activation that capture total cortisol secretion over multiple months, [such as] hair cortisol, strongly correlate with cognitive performance on attention and working memory tasks, whereas measures of more acute cortisol, [such as] salivary cortisol, may be more strongly associated with depression symptom severity and verbal learning,” Christina Metcalf, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Colorado Center for Women’s Behavioral Health and Wellness at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, told attendees. “Given the associations with chronic stress, there’s a lot of potential here to increase our knowledge about how women are doing and managing stress and life stressors during this life transition,” she said.

Measuring hair cortisol more feasible

The study was conducted remotely, with participants using video conferencing to communicate with the study personnel and then completing study procedures at home, including 2 days of cognitive testing with the California Verbal Learning Test – Third Edition and the n-back and continuous performance tasks. The participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

Participants with higher levels of hair cortisol and salivary cortisol also had more severe depression symptoms (P < .001). Hair cortisol was also significantly associated with attention and working memory: Women with higher levels had fewer correct answers on the 0-back and 1-back trials (P < .01) and made more mistakes on the 2-back trial (P < .001). They also scored with less specificity on the continuous performance tasks (P = .022).

Although no association existed between hair cortisol levels and verbal learning or verbal memory (P > .05), participants with higher hair cortisol did score worse on the immediate recall trials (P = .034). Salivary cortisol levels, on the other hand, showed no association with memory recall trials, attention or working memory (P > .05).

Measuring cortisol from hair samples is more feasible than using saliva samples and may offer valuable insights regarding hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activity “to consider alongside the cognitive and mental health of late peri-/early postmenopausal women,” Dr. Metcalf told attendees. The next step is to find out whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis axis is a modifiable biomarker that can be used to improve executive function.

The study was limited by its small population, its cross-sectional design, and the lack of covariates in the current analyses.
 

Monitor symptoms in midlife

Hadine Joffe, MD, MSc, a professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said the study findings were not surprising given how common the complaints of stress and depressive symptoms are.

“Mood changes are linked with acute, immediate cortisol levels at the same point in time, and cognitive symptoms were linked to more chronically elevated cortisol levels,” Dr. Joffe said in an interview. “Women and their providers should monitor for these challenging brain symptoms in midlife as they affect performance and quality of life and are linked with changes in the HPA axis as stress biomarkers.”

Because the study is small and has a cross-sectional design, it’s not possible to determine the direction of the associations or to make any inferences about causation, Dr. Joffe said.

“We cannot make the conclusion that stress is adversely affecting mood and cognitive performance given the design limitations. It is possible that mood and cognitive issues contributed to these stress markers,” Dr. Joffe said.“However, it is known that the experience of stress is linked with vulnerability to mood and cognitive symptoms, and also that mood and cognitive symptoms induce significant stress.”

The research was funded by the Menopause Society, Colorado University, the Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Aging. Dr. Metcalf had no disclosures. Dr. Joffe has received grant support from Merck, Pfizer and Sage, and has been a consultant or advisor for Bayer, Merck and Hello Therapeutics.

PHILADELPHIA – Acute stress in peri- and postmenopausal women is associated with more depressive symptoms, while chronic stress showed greater association with memory and concentration problems, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

“This work suggests that markers of hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activation that capture total cortisol secretion over multiple months, [such as] hair cortisol, strongly correlate with cognitive performance on attention and working memory tasks, whereas measures of more acute cortisol, [such as] salivary cortisol, may be more strongly associated with depression symptom severity and verbal learning,” Christina Metcalf, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Colorado Center for Women’s Behavioral Health and Wellness at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, told attendees. “Given the associations with chronic stress, there’s a lot of potential here to increase our knowledge about how women are doing and managing stress and life stressors during this life transition,” she said.

Measuring hair cortisol more feasible

The study was conducted remotely, with participants using video conferencing to communicate with the study personnel and then completing study procedures at home, including 2 days of cognitive testing with the California Verbal Learning Test – Third Edition and the n-back and continuous performance tasks. The participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

Participants with higher levels of hair cortisol and salivary cortisol also had more severe depression symptoms (P < .001). Hair cortisol was also significantly associated with attention and working memory: Women with higher levels had fewer correct answers on the 0-back and 1-back trials (P < .01) and made more mistakes on the 2-back trial (P < .001). They also scored with less specificity on the continuous performance tasks (P = .022).

Although no association existed between hair cortisol levels and verbal learning or verbal memory (P > .05), participants with higher hair cortisol did score worse on the immediate recall trials (P = .034). Salivary cortisol levels, on the other hand, showed no association with memory recall trials, attention or working memory (P > .05).

Measuring cortisol from hair samples is more feasible than using saliva samples and may offer valuable insights regarding hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activity “to consider alongside the cognitive and mental health of late peri-/early postmenopausal women,” Dr. Metcalf told attendees. The next step is to find out whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis axis is a modifiable biomarker that can be used to improve executive function.

The study was limited by its small population, its cross-sectional design, and the lack of covariates in the current analyses.
 

Monitor symptoms in midlife

Hadine Joffe, MD, MSc, a professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said the study findings were not surprising given how common the complaints of stress and depressive symptoms are.

“Mood changes are linked with acute, immediate cortisol levels at the same point in time, and cognitive symptoms were linked to more chronically elevated cortisol levels,” Dr. Joffe said in an interview. “Women and their providers should monitor for these challenging brain symptoms in midlife as they affect performance and quality of life and are linked with changes in the HPA axis as stress biomarkers.”

Because the study is small and has a cross-sectional design, it’s not possible to determine the direction of the associations or to make any inferences about causation, Dr. Joffe said.

“We cannot make the conclusion that stress is adversely affecting mood and cognitive performance given the design limitations. It is possible that mood and cognitive issues contributed to these stress markers,” Dr. Joffe said.“However, it is known that the experience of stress is linked with vulnerability to mood and cognitive symptoms, and also that mood and cognitive symptoms induce significant stress.”

The research was funded by the Menopause Society, Colorado University, the Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Aging. Dr. Metcalf had no disclosures. Dr. Joffe has received grant support from Merck, Pfizer and Sage, and has been a consultant or advisor for Bayer, Merck and Hello Therapeutics.

PHILADELPHIA – Acute stress in peri- and postmenopausal women is associated with more depressive symptoms, while chronic stress showed greater association with memory and concentration problems, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

“This work suggests that markers of hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activation that capture total cortisol secretion over multiple months, [such as] hair cortisol, strongly correlate with cognitive performance on attention and working memory tasks, whereas measures of more acute cortisol, [such as] salivary cortisol, may be more strongly associated with depression symptom severity and verbal learning,” Christina Metcalf, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Colorado Center for Women’s Behavioral Health and Wellness at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, told attendees. “Given the associations with chronic stress, there’s a lot of potential here to increase our knowledge about how women are doing and managing stress and life stressors during this life transition,” she said.

Measuring hair cortisol more feasible

The study was conducted remotely, with participants using video conferencing to communicate with the study personnel and then completing study procedures at home, including 2 days of cognitive testing with the California Verbal Learning Test – Third Edition and the n-back and continuous performance tasks. The participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

Participants with higher levels of hair cortisol and salivary cortisol also had more severe depression symptoms (P < .001). Hair cortisol was also significantly associated with attention and working memory: Women with higher levels had fewer correct answers on the 0-back and 1-back trials (P < .01) and made more mistakes on the 2-back trial (P < .001). They also scored with less specificity on the continuous performance tasks (P = .022).

Although no association existed between hair cortisol levels and verbal learning or verbal memory (P > .05), participants with higher hair cortisol did score worse on the immediate recall trials (P = .034). Salivary cortisol levels, on the other hand, showed no association with memory recall trials, attention or working memory (P > .05).

Measuring cortisol from hair samples is more feasible than using saliva samples and may offer valuable insights regarding hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activity “to consider alongside the cognitive and mental health of late peri-/early postmenopausal women,” Dr. Metcalf told attendees. The next step is to find out whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis axis is a modifiable biomarker that can be used to improve executive function.

The study was limited by its small population, its cross-sectional design, and the lack of covariates in the current analyses.
 

Monitor symptoms in midlife

Hadine Joffe, MD, MSc, a professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said the study findings were not surprising given how common the complaints of stress and depressive symptoms are.

“Mood changes are linked with acute, immediate cortisol levels at the same point in time, and cognitive symptoms were linked to more chronically elevated cortisol levels,” Dr. Joffe said in an interview. “Women and their providers should monitor for these challenging brain symptoms in midlife as they affect performance and quality of life and are linked with changes in the HPA axis as stress biomarkers.”

Because the study is small and has a cross-sectional design, it’s not possible to determine the direction of the associations or to make any inferences about causation, Dr. Joffe said.

“We cannot make the conclusion that stress is adversely affecting mood and cognitive performance given the design limitations. It is possible that mood and cognitive issues contributed to these stress markers,” Dr. Joffe said.“However, it is known that the experience of stress is linked with vulnerability to mood and cognitive symptoms, and also that mood and cognitive symptoms induce significant stress.”

The research was funded by the Menopause Society, Colorado University, the Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Aging. Dr. Metcalf had no disclosures. Dr. Joffe has received grant support from Merck, Pfizer and Sage, and has been a consultant or advisor for Bayer, Merck and Hello Therapeutics.

TOPLINE:

Risk of death by suicide was lower among U.S. veterans with a disability, compared with nonveterans with a disability, new data from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show. Investigators speculate that veteran status may mitigate suicide risk given increased provision of disability-related care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they acknowledge that more research is needed to confirm this theory.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study includes analysis of self-reported data collected from 2015 to 2020 from 231,000 NSDUH respondents, 9% of whom were veterans; 20% reported at least one disability.
• Respondents were asked questions about suicide, veteran status, and the number and type of disability they had, if applicable.
• Disabilities included those related to hearing, sight, and concentration, memory, decision-making, ambulation, or functional status (at home or outside the home).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 4.4% of the sample reported suicide ideation, planning, or attempt.
• Among participants with one disability, being a veteran was associated with a 43% lower risk of suicide planning (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03).
• Among those with two disabilities, veterans had a 54% lower likelihood of having a history of suicide attempt, compared with nonveterans (aOR, 0.46; P = .02).
• Compared with U.S. veterans reporting 1, 2, and ≥ 3 disabilities, U.S. veterans with no disabilities were 50%, 160%, and 127% more likely, respectively, to report suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed buffering effect of veteran status among people with a disability may be reflective of characteristics of disability-related care offered through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” the authors write. “It is possible that VA services could act as a protective factor for suicide-related outcomes for veterans with disabilities by improving access, quality of care, and understanding of their disability context.”

SOURCE:

Rebecca K. Blais, PhD, of Arizona State University, Tempe, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Assessments were based on self-reported information and there was no information about disability severity, which may have influenced suicide risk among veterans and nonveterans.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Anne Kirby, PhD, received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from University of Pittsburgh outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Risk of death by suicide was lower among U.S. veterans with a disability, compared with nonveterans with a disability, new data from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show. Investigators speculate that veteran status may mitigate suicide risk given increased provision of disability-related care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they acknowledge that more research is needed to confirm this theory.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study includes analysis of self-reported data collected from 2015 to 2020 from 231,000 NSDUH respondents, 9% of whom were veterans; 20% reported at least one disability.
• Respondents were asked questions about suicide, veteran status, and the number and type of disability they had, if applicable.
• Disabilities included those related to hearing, sight, and concentration, memory, decision-making, ambulation, or functional status (at home or outside the home).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 4.4% of the sample reported suicide ideation, planning, or attempt.
• Among participants with one disability, being a veteran was associated with a 43% lower risk of suicide planning (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03).
• Among those with two disabilities, veterans had a 54% lower likelihood of having a history of suicide attempt, compared with nonveterans (aOR, 0.46; P = .02).
• Compared with U.S. veterans reporting 1, 2, and ≥ 3 disabilities, U.S. veterans with no disabilities were 50%, 160%, and 127% more likely, respectively, to report suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed buffering effect of veteran status among people with a disability may be reflective of characteristics of disability-related care offered through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” the authors write. “It is possible that VA services could act as a protective factor for suicide-related outcomes for veterans with disabilities by improving access, quality of care, and understanding of their disability context.”

SOURCE:

Rebecca K. Blais, PhD, of Arizona State University, Tempe, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Assessments were based on self-reported information and there was no information about disability severity, which may have influenced suicide risk among veterans and nonveterans.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Anne Kirby, PhD, received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from University of Pittsburgh outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Risk of death by suicide was lower among U.S. veterans with a disability, compared with nonveterans with a disability, new data from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show. Investigators speculate that veteran status may mitigate suicide risk given increased provision of disability-related care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they acknowledge that more research is needed to confirm this theory.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study includes analysis of self-reported data collected from 2015 to 2020 from 231,000 NSDUH respondents, 9% of whom were veterans; 20% reported at least one disability.
• Respondents were asked questions about suicide, veteran status, and the number and type of disability they had, if applicable.
• Disabilities included those related to hearing, sight, and concentration, memory, decision-making, ambulation, or functional status (at home or outside the home).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 4.4% of the sample reported suicide ideation, planning, or attempt.
• Among participants with one disability, being a veteran was associated with a 43% lower risk of suicide planning (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03).
• Among those with two disabilities, veterans had a 54% lower likelihood of having a history of suicide attempt, compared with nonveterans (aOR, 0.46; P = .02).
• Compared with U.S. veterans reporting 1, 2, and ≥ 3 disabilities, U.S. veterans with no disabilities were 50%, 160%, and 127% more likely, respectively, to report suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed buffering effect of veteran status among people with a disability may be reflective of characteristics of disability-related care offered through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” the authors write. “It is possible that VA services could act as a protective factor for suicide-related outcomes for veterans with disabilities by improving access, quality of care, and understanding of their disability context.”

SOURCE:

Rebecca K. Blais, PhD, of Arizona State University, Tempe, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Assessments were based on self-reported information and there was no information about disability severity, which may have influenced suicide risk among veterans and nonveterans.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Anne Kirby, PhD, received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from University of Pittsburgh outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

VANCOUVER – Patients who undergo either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy are at an increased risk of fracture, compared with patients with obesity who do not undergo surgery, according to a new analysis of a predominantly male group of U.S. veterans.

Previous studies involving premenopausal women have found a risk of bone mineral density loss and fracture with bariatric surgery, but little was known about the risk among men. Research has also shown an increase in risk after RYGB, but there is less information on risks associated with sleeve gastrectomy, though it is now the most common surgery for weight loss.

Bone density loss after bariatric surgery has been shown to be significant, according to Eileen H. Koh, MD. “It’s quite a lot of bone loss, quickly,” said Dr. Koh, a graduated fellow from the endocrinology program at the University of California, San Francisco, who is moving to the University of Washington, Seattle.

Those observations generally come from studies of younger women. The purpose of the new study “was to see if we see the same risk of fracture in veterans who are older men, so kind of the opposite of the typical bariatric patient,” said Dr. Koh, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The researchers analyzed data from 8,299 U.S. veterans who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (41%), RYGB (51%), adjustable gastric banding (4%), or an unspecified bariatric procedure (4%) between 2000 and 2020. They were matched with 24,877 individuals with obesity who did not undergo surgery. The investigators excluded individuals who were at high risk of fracture because of another condition, such as organ transplantation or dialysis. Men made up 70% of both surgical and nonsurgical groups. The mean age was 52 years for both, and 89% and 88% were not Hispanic or Latino, respectively. The proportion of White individuals was 72% and 64%, and the proportion of Black individuals was 18% and 24%.

After adjustment for demographic variables and comorbidities, bariatric surgery was associated with a 68% increased risk of fracture (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.80), including hip fractures (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.98-2.97), spine (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.61-2.06), radius/ulna (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.05-2.77), humerus (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.28-1.89), pelvis (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.68-3.46), and tibia/fibula/ankle (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69). Increased fracture risk was associated with RYGB (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.75-2.12) and sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69) but not adjustable gastric banding.

Compared with sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding was associated with a decreased risk of fracture (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84; P = .0012).

The study’s predominantly male population is important because men also get osteoporosis and are frequently overlooked, according to Anne Schafer, MD, who was the lead author of the study. “Even after they fracture, men are sometimes less likely to get care to prevent the next fracture. We’ve shown here that especially men who are on the older side, who go through surgical weight loss, do have a higher risk of fracture compared to those who are similarly obese but have not had the operation,” said Dr. Schafer, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

There are limited data on fracture risk after sleeve gastrectomy. “I think this is one of the first times that I’ve been able to demonstrate that there was a higher risk of fracture with sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with nonsurgical cohorts. Of course, it’s necessary to confirm these findings in further studies, but it’s interesting,” said Julien Paccou, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked for comment. His group’s study of a French population showed an increased fracture risk associated with RYGB but not sleeve gastrectomy. Another study found a reduction of fracture risk associated with sleeve gastrectomy and no difference between RYGB and nonsurgical matched control patients in a Medicare population.

In fact, there is a belief that fracture risk may be lower with sleeve gastrectomy, according to Dr. Schafer. “It’s part of why it’s so popular,” she said.

The reasons for increased fracture risk following surgical weight loss remains unknown, according to Dr. Paccou, but they could include mechanical unloading, loss of lean mass, and hormone and nutrition changes. “There are many, many factors,” said Dr. Paccou, a professor of rheumatology at Hospital Roger Salengro in Lille, France.

The study’s findings of increased risk of fracture after sleeve gastrectomy may be an argument against malabsorption because the procedure shouldn’t affect nutrient absorption. It suggests that other factors are at play. “It’s not the only reason,” Dr. Schafer said.

There are recommendations for postbariatric surgery care to optimize bone health, such as protein intake and calcium and vitamin D targets, along with lifestyle factors. “Despite all those [efforts], we still know that bone loss occurs,” Dr. Koh said. In fact, the group is conducting a study funded by Amgen of the use of denosumab (Prolia) for the prevention of high-turnover bone loss after RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy.

Dr. Schafer has received research support from Bone Health Technologies and Amgen. Dr. Koh and Dr. Paccou have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – Patients who undergo either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy are at an increased risk of fracture, compared with patients with obesity who do not undergo surgery, according to a new analysis of a predominantly male group of U.S. veterans.

Previous studies involving premenopausal women have found a risk of bone mineral density loss and fracture with bariatric surgery, but little was known about the risk among men. Research has also shown an increase in risk after RYGB, but there is less information on risks associated with sleeve gastrectomy, though it is now the most common surgery for weight loss.

Bone density loss after bariatric surgery has been shown to be significant, according to Eileen H. Koh, MD. “It’s quite a lot of bone loss, quickly,” said Dr. Koh, a graduated fellow from the endocrinology program at the University of California, San Francisco, who is moving to the University of Washington, Seattle.

Those observations generally come from studies of younger women. The purpose of the new study “was to see if we see the same risk of fracture in veterans who are older men, so kind of the opposite of the typical bariatric patient,” said Dr. Koh, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The researchers analyzed data from 8,299 U.S. veterans who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (41%), RYGB (51%), adjustable gastric banding (4%), or an unspecified bariatric procedure (4%) between 2000 and 2020. They were matched with 24,877 individuals with obesity who did not undergo surgery. The investigators excluded individuals who were at high risk of fracture because of another condition, such as organ transplantation or dialysis. Men made up 70% of both surgical and nonsurgical groups. The mean age was 52 years for both, and 89% and 88% were not Hispanic or Latino, respectively. The proportion of White individuals was 72% and 64%, and the proportion of Black individuals was 18% and 24%.

After adjustment for demographic variables and comorbidities, bariatric surgery was associated with a 68% increased risk of fracture (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.80), including hip fractures (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.98-2.97), spine (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.61-2.06), radius/ulna (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.05-2.77), humerus (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.28-1.89), pelvis (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.68-3.46), and tibia/fibula/ankle (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69). Increased fracture risk was associated with RYGB (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.75-2.12) and sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69) but not adjustable gastric banding.

Compared with sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding was associated with a decreased risk of fracture (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84; P = .0012).

The study’s predominantly male population is important because men also get osteoporosis and are frequently overlooked, according to Anne Schafer, MD, who was the lead author of the study. “Even after they fracture, men are sometimes less likely to get care to prevent the next fracture. We’ve shown here that especially men who are on the older side, who go through surgical weight loss, do have a higher risk of fracture compared to those who are similarly obese but have not had the operation,” said Dr. Schafer, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

There are limited data on fracture risk after sleeve gastrectomy. “I think this is one of the first times that I’ve been able to demonstrate that there was a higher risk of fracture with sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with nonsurgical cohorts. Of course, it’s necessary to confirm these findings in further studies, but it’s interesting,” said Julien Paccou, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked for comment. His group’s study of a French population showed an increased fracture risk associated with RYGB but not sleeve gastrectomy. Another study found a reduction of fracture risk associated with sleeve gastrectomy and no difference between RYGB and nonsurgical matched control patients in a Medicare population.

In fact, there is a belief that fracture risk may be lower with sleeve gastrectomy, according to Dr. Schafer. “It’s part of why it’s so popular,” she said.

The reasons for increased fracture risk following surgical weight loss remains unknown, according to Dr. Paccou, but they could include mechanical unloading, loss of lean mass, and hormone and nutrition changes. “There are many, many factors,” said Dr. Paccou, a professor of rheumatology at Hospital Roger Salengro in Lille, France.

The study’s findings of increased risk of fracture after sleeve gastrectomy may be an argument against malabsorption because the procedure shouldn’t affect nutrient absorption. It suggests that other factors are at play. “It’s not the only reason,” Dr. Schafer said.

There are recommendations for postbariatric surgery care to optimize bone health, such as protein intake and calcium and vitamin D targets, along with lifestyle factors. “Despite all those [efforts], we still know that bone loss occurs,” Dr. Koh said. In fact, the group is conducting a study funded by Amgen of the use of denosumab (Prolia) for the prevention of high-turnover bone loss after RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy.

Dr. Schafer has received research support from Bone Health Technologies and Amgen. Dr. Koh and Dr. Paccou have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – Patients who undergo either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy are at an increased risk of fracture, compared with patients with obesity who do not undergo surgery, according to a new analysis of a predominantly male group of U.S. veterans.

Previous studies involving premenopausal women have found a risk of bone mineral density loss and fracture with bariatric surgery, but little was known about the risk among men. Research has also shown an increase in risk after RYGB, but there is less information on risks associated with sleeve gastrectomy, though it is now the most common surgery for weight loss.

Bone density loss after bariatric surgery has been shown to be significant, according to Eileen H. Koh, MD. “It’s quite a lot of bone loss, quickly,” said Dr. Koh, a graduated fellow from the endocrinology program at the University of California, San Francisco, who is moving to the University of Washington, Seattle.

Those observations generally come from studies of younger women. The purpose of the new study “was to see if we see the same risk of fracture in veterans who are older men, so kind of the opposite of the typical bariatric patient,” said Dr. Koh, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The researchers analyzed data from 8,299 U.S. veterans who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (41%), RYGB (51%), adjustable gastric banding (4%), or an unspecified bariatric procedure (4%) between 2000 and 2020. They were matched with 24,877 individuals with obesity who did not undergo surgery. The investigators excluded individuals who were at high risk of fracture because of another condition, such as organ transplantation or dialysis. Men made up 70% of both surgical and nonsurgical groups. The mean age was 52 years for both, and 89% and 88% were not Hispanic or Latino, respectively. The proportion of White individuals was 72% and 64%, and the proportion of Black individuals was 18% and 24%.

After adjustment for demographic variables and comorbidities, bariatric surgery was associated with a 68% increased risk of fracture (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.80), including hip fractures (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.98-2.97), spine (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.61-2.06), radius/ulna (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.05-2.77), humerus (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.28-1.89), pelvis (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.68-3.46), and tibia/fibula/ankle (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69). Increased fracture risk was associated with RYGB (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.75-2.12) and sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69) but not adjustable gastric banding.

Compared with sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding was associated with a decreased risk of fracture (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84; P = .0012).

The study’s predominantly male population is important because men also get osteoporosis and are frequently overlooked, according to Anne Schafer, MD, who was the lead author of the study. “Even after they fracture, men are sometimes less likely to get care to prevent the next fracture. We’ve shown here that especially men who are on the older side, who go through surgical weight loss, do have a higher risk of fracture compared to those who are similarly obese but have not had the operation,” said Dr. Schafer, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

There are limited data on fracture risk after sleeve gastrectomy. “I think this is one of the first times that I’ve been able to demonstrate that there was a higher risk of fracture with sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with nonsurgical cohorts. Of course, it’s necessary to confirm these findings in further studies, but it’s interesting,” said Julien Paccou, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked for comment. His group’s study of a French population showed an increased fracture risk associated with RYGB but not sleeve gastrectomy. Another study found a reduction of fracture risk associated with sleeve gastrectomy and no difference between RYGB and nonsurgical matched control patients in a Medicare population.

In fact, there is a belief that fracture risk may be lower with sleeve gastrectomy, according to Dr. Schafer. “It’s part of why it’s so popular,” she said.

The reasons for increased fracture risk following surgical weight loss remains unknown, according to Dr. Paccou, but they could include mechanical unloading, loss of lean mass, and hormone and nutrition changes. “There are many, many factors,” said Dr. Paccou, a professor of rheumatology at Hospital Roger Salengro in Lille, France.

The study’s findings of increased risk of fracture after sleeve gastrectomy may be an argument against malabsorption because the procedure shouldn’t affect nutrient absorption. It suggests that other factors are at play. “It’s not the only reason,” Dr. Schafer said.

There are recommendations for postbariatric surgery care to optimize bone health, such as protein intake and calcium and vitamin D targets, along with lifestyle factors. “Despite all those [efforts], we still know that bone loss occurs,” Dr. Koh said. In fact, the group is conducting a study funded by Amgen of the use of denosumab (Prolia) for the prevention of high-turnover bone loss after RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy.

Dr. Schafer has received research support from Bone Health Technologies and Amgen. Dr. Koh and Dr. Paccou have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) conferred the highest risk for a new, first-time clinical fracture in people with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity, independent of any prevalent neuropathy, according to findings from an analysis of a large, randomized clinical trial.

Although the findings are suggestive, they don’t definitively pin blame on TCAs, said Rachel Elam, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. “I think that there’s not enough information to conclude that tricyclic antidepressants directly lead to fractures, but I think it opens the door [to] something we should look into more. Is it being mediated by a better predictor, or is it the medication itself? I think it’s more hypothesis generating,” said Dr. Elam, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are known to be at increased risk of fracture, but prediction tools tend to underestimate this risk, Dr. Elam said. “Type 2 diabetes–specific clinical risk factors may be helpful for finding out fracture risk in this population,” Dr. Elam said during her talk.

Glycemic control is one candidate risk factor because advanced glycation end products are linked to reduced bone strength. Other factors include antidiabetic medication use, neuropathy, and microvascular disease, which has been linked to increased cortical porosity.

The study examined a somewhat younger population than previous surveys, having drawn from the Look AHEAD-C clinical trial, which examined the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes. Look AHEAD-C included 4,697 participants aged 45-75 from 16 U.S. clinical sites. Participants had a body mass index of 25.0 kg/m² or higher and hemoglobin A1c levels of 11% or below.

Dr. Elam cited the database’s inclusion of factors like A1c levels, renal parameters, and diabetic neuropathy. “It gave us a really good population to look at those risk factors” in a large group of people with type 2 diabetes, she said.

Over a median follow-up of 16.6 years, there were 649 participants with incident first clinical fracture(s). Statistically significant factors predicting fracture risk included TCA use (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-4.43), female gender (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.83-2.66), insulin use (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57), increases in A1c level (per 1% increase: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), other or mixed race/ethnicity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), Hispanic White race/ethnicity (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47), and estrogen use (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98).

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Elsa Strotmeyer, PhD, commented that TCAs have been linked to central nervous system pathways in falls in other populations. “It’s a very nice study. It’s important to look at the diabetes complications related to the fracture risk, but I thought that they should have emphasized some more of the diabetes complications being related to fracture rather than these tricyclic antidepressants, because that is not a unique factor to that population,” said Dr. Strotmeyer, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Instead, she noted a different strength of the study. “The study population is important because they’re a relatively young population with type 2 diabetes, compared to many studies [that] have been published in older populations. Showing similar things that we found in older populations was the unique piece and the important piece of this study,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Ultimately, the model wasn’t sufficient to be used as a fall risk predictor, but it should inform future work, according to Dr. Elam. “I think it does lay some new groundwork that when we’re looking forward, it may [help in building] other models to better predict fracture risk in type 2 diabetes. Things that would be important to include [in future models] would be medication use, such as tricyclic antidepressants,” and to make sure we include glycemic control, A1c, and insulin medication.

The study was independently funded. Dr. Elam and Dr. Strotmeyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) conferred the highest risk for a new, first-time clinical fracture in people with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity, independent of any prevalent neuropathy, according to findings from an analysis of a large, randomized clinical trial.

Although the findings are suggestive, they don’t definitively pin blame on TCAs, said Rachel Elam, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. “I think that there’s not enough information to conclude that tricyclic antidepressants directly lead to fractures, but I think it opens the door [to] something we should look into more. Is it being mediated by a better predictor, or is it the medication itself? I think it’s more hypothesis generating,” said Dr. Elam, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are known to be at increased risk of fracture, but prediction tools tend to underestimate this risk, Dr. Elam said. “Type 2 diabetes–specific clinical risk factors may be helpful for finding out fracture risk in this population,” Dr. Elam said during her talk.

Glycemic control is one candidate risk factor because advanced glycation end products are linked to reduced bone strength. Other factors include antidiabetic medication use, neuropathy, and microvascular disease, which has been linked to increased cortical porosity.

The study examined a somewhat younger population than previous surveys, having drawn from the Look AHEAD-C clinical trial, which examined the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes. Look AHEAD-C included 4,697 participants aged 45-75 from 16 U.S. clinical sites. Participants had a body mass index of 25.0 kg/m² or higher and hemoglobin A1c levels of 11% or below.

Dr. Elam cited the database’s inclusion of factors like A1c levels, renal parameters, and diabetic neuropathy. “It gave us a really good population to look at those risk factors” in a large group of people with type 2 diabetes, she said.

Over a median follow-up of 16.6 years, there were 649 participants with incident first clinical fracture(s). Statistically significant factors predicting fracture risk included TCA use (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-4.43), female gender (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.83-2.66), insulin use (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57), increases in A1c level (per 1% increase: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), other or mixed race/ethnicity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), Hispanic White race/ethnicity (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47), and estrogen use (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98).

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Elsa Strotmeyer, PhD, commented that TCAs have been linked to central nervous system pathways in falls in other populations. “It’s a very nice study. It’s important to look at the diabetes complications related to the fracture risk, but I thought that they should have emphasized some more of the diabetes complications being related to fracture rather than these tricyclic antidepressants, because that is not a unique factor to that population,” said Dr. Strotmeyer, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Instead, she noted a different strength of the study. “The study population is important because they’re a relatively young population with type 2 diabetes, compared to many studies [that] have been published in older populations. Showing similar things that we found in older populations was the unique piece and the important piece of this study,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Ultimately, the model wasn’t sufficient to be used as a fall risk predictor, but it should inform future work, according to Dr. Elam. “I think it does lay some new groundwork that when we’re looking forward, it may [help in building] other models to better predict fracture risk in type 2 diabetes. Things that would be important to include [in future models] would be medication use, such as tricyclic antidepressants,” and to make sure we include glycemic control, A1c, and insulin medication.

The study was independently funded. Dr. Elam and Dr. Strotmeyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) conferred the highest risk for a new, first-time clinical fracture in people with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity, independent of any prevalent neuropathy, according to findings from an analysis of a large, randomized clinical trial.

Although the findings are suggestive, they don’t definitively pin blame on TCAs, said Rachel Elam, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. “I think that there’s not enough information to conclude that tricyclic antidepressants directly lead to fractures, but I think it opens the door [to] something we should look into more. Is it being mediated by a better predictor, or is it the medication itself? I think it’s more hypothesis generating,” said Dr. Elam, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are known to be at increased risk of fracture, but prediction tools tend to underestimate this risk, Dr. Elam said. “Type 2 diabetes–specific clinical risk factors may be helpful for finding out fracture risk in this population,” Dr. Elam said during her talk.

Glycemic control is one candidate risk factor because advanced glycation end products are linked to reduced bone strength. Other factors include antidiabetic medication use, neuropathy, and microvascular disease, which has been linked to increased cortical porosity.

The study examined a somewhat younger population than previous surveys, having drawn from the Look AHEAD-C clinical trial, which examined the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes. Look AHEAD-C included 4,697 participants aged 45-75 from 16 U.S. clinical sites. Participants had a body mass index of 25.0 kg/m² or higher and hemoglobin A1c levels of 11% or below.

Dr. Elam cited the database’s inclusion of factors like A1c levels, renal parameters, and diabetic neuropathy. “It gave us a really good population to look at those risk factors” in a large group of people with type 2 diabetes, she said.

Over a median follow-up of 16.6 years, there were 649 participants with incident first clinical fracture(s). Statistically significant factors predicting fracture risk included TCA use (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-4.43), female gender (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.83-2.66), insulin use (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57), increases in A1c level (per 1% increase: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), other or mixed race/ethnicity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), Hispanic White race/ethnicity (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47), and estrogen use (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98).

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Elsa Strotmeyer, PhD, commented that TCAs have been linked to central nervous system pathways in falls in other populations. “It’s a very nice study. It’s important to look at the diabetes complications related to the fracture risk, but I thought that they should have emphasized some more of the diabetes complications being related to fracture rather than these tricyclic antidepressants, because that is not a unique factor to that population,” said Dr. Strotmeyer, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Instead, she noted a different strength of the study. “The study population is important because they’re a relatively young population with type 2 diabetes, compared to many studies [that] have been published in older populations. Showing similar things that we found in older populations was the unique piece and the important piece of this study,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Ultimately, the model wasn’t sufficient to be used as a fall risk predictor, but it should inform future work, according to Dr. Elam. “I think it does lay some new groundwork that when we’re looking forward, it may [help in building] other models to better predict fracture risk in type 2 diabetes. Things that would be important to include [in future models] would be medication use, such as tricyclic antidepressants,” and to make sure we include glycemic control, A1c, and insulin medication.

The study was independently funded. Dr. Elam and Dr. Strotmeyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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