MDedge ObGyn

The unfortunate death of Lori McClintock, wife of northern California congressman Tom McClintock, shortly after consuming the herbal remedy white mulberry leaf on Dec. 15, 2021, gives us the opportunity to discuss how to better protect the American public from nutritional supplements with claims to aid health. Mulberry leaf has been purported to lower blood glucose levels, cholesterol, and inflammation as well as promote weight loss.

Many people desire to improve their health with concoctions purported to be “natural” or “from nature” instead of seeing a doctor and taking a medication or other therapy that is evidenced-based and backed by approval from the Food and Drug Administration. With the burgeoning prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country (and worldwide) and the lack of a magic bullet that can stop the progression of these life-threatening diseases, many Americans turn to herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to promote weight loss and improve health.

Passed in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed manufacturers of herbal and nutritional supplements to be “off the radar” of government regulators, unless their products have been shown to do harm – which is the government’s burden to prove.

A dietary supplement is defined as a product containing one or more vitamin, mineral, herb, or other botanical; amino acid; or other substance that would increase the total dietary intake of that product.

DSHEA exempted dietary supplements from the rigorous safety and efficacy testing that medications must undergo for various disease states, which is regulated by the FDA.
 

People with obesity may fall prey to dietary supplements’ claims

Persons suffering from obesity and its metabolic sequelae may be susceptible to the claims of dietary supplements because:

• The stigma associated with obesity, including the lack of understanding that obesity is a disease not under a person’s control, may make those with the disease wish to remedy it on their own out of shame and peer pressure.
• Clinicians and doctors traditionally have not been trained in obesity medicine so they aren’t comfortable treating obesity.
• It’s only fairly recently that obesity was recognized as a disease, so many insurance companies still don’t reimburse for obesity treatments, including the agents that can suppress appetite and result in weight loss.

For all of these reasons and more, only 2% or less of the millions of Americans suffering from obesity are treated with an antiobesity agent each year.

This has paved the way for the dietary supplement industry to prey on a desperate population, in much the same way that fad diets continue to attract multitudes of Americans. These supplements, however, carry much more risk than fad diets.

The solution, of course, is better regulation of the supplement industry, but it’s also improvement of how obesity is treated by the medical community.
 

How can clinicians and the community help?

Government, academic, community, clinical, and lay persons are more frequently recognizing obesity as a disease. Stigma will slowly come to a halt, as it has for other diseases such as depression and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Medications that have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy eventually will be prescribed more and covered by healthcare insurance. Clinicians, and specifically physicians, are the most trusted persons in terms of giving medical advice. We need to ask patients whether they are taking supplements and be vocal about their lack of protection against harm, as allowed by DSHEA.

It would not be overkill to add prompts to the medical record to ask patients not only about smoking, alcohol, and drug use but also about supplements of all kinds. Some medical records do use these prompts but they are not as ubiquitous as those for smoking, alcohol, and drug use.

The supplement industry is powerful, but so is the medical industry when it comes to lobbying for change. It is ironic that Lori McClintock was the wife of a congressman. Perhaps the silver lining is future work toward legislation advocating for an end to these tragic deaths from poorly regulated supplements. Alignment with government in pushing for stricter regulations could save lives in the future.

Dr. Apovian is a faculty member, department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension; and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Boston. She disclosed ties with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.



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

The unfortunate death of Lori McClintock, wife of northern California congressman Tom McClintock, shortly after consuming the herbal remedy white mulberry leaf on Dec. 15, 2021, gives us the opportunity to discuss how to better protect the American public from nutritional supplements with claims to aid health. Mulberry leaf has been purported to lower blood glucose levels, cholesterol, and inflammation as well as promote weight loss.

Many people desire to improve their health with concoctions purported to be “natural” or “from nature” instead of seeing a doctor and taking a medication or other therapy that is evidenced-based and backed by approval from the Food and Drug Administration. With the burgeoning prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country (and worldwide) and the lack of a magic bullet that can stop the progression of these life-threatening diseases, many Americans turn to herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to promote weight loss and improve health.

Passed in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed manufacturers of herbal and nutritional supplements to be “off the radar” of government regulators, unless their products have been shown to do harm – which is the government’s burden to prove.

A dietary supplement is defined as a product containing one or more vitamin, mineral, herb, or other botanical; amino acid; or other substance that would increase the total dietary intake of that product.

DSHEA exempted dietary supplements from the rigorous safety and efficacy testing that medications must undergo for various disease states, which is regulated by the FDA.
 

People with obesity may fall prey to dietary supplements’ claims

Persons suffering from obesity and its metabolic sequelae may be susceptible to the claims of dietary supplements because:

• The stigma associated with obesity, including the lack of understanding that obesity is a disease not under a person’s control, may make those with the disease wish to remedy it on their own out of shame and peer pressure.
• Clinicians and doctors traditionally have not been trained in obesity medicine so they aren’t comfortable treating obesity.
• It’s only fairly recently that obesity was recognized as a disease, so many insurance companies still don’t reimburse for obesity treatments, including the agents that can suppress appetite and result in weight loss.

For all of these reasons and more, only 2% or less of the millions of Americans suffering from obesity are treated with an antiobesity agent each year.

This has paved the way for the dietary supplement industry to prey on a desperate population, in much the same way that fad diets continue to attract multitudes of Americans. These supplements, however, carry much more risk than fad diets.

The solution, of course, is better regulation of the supplement industry, but it’s also improvement of how obesity is treated by the medical community.
 

How can clinicians and the community help?

Government, academic, community, clinical, and lay persons are more frequently recognizing obesity as a disease. Stigma will slowly come to a halt, as it has for other diseases such as depression and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Medications that have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy eventually will be prescribed more and covered by healthcare insurance. Clinicians, and specifically physicians, are the most trusted persons in terms of giving medical advice. We need to ask patients whether they are taking supplements and be vocal about their lack of protection against harm, as allowed by DSHEA.

It would not be overkill to add prompts to the medical record to ask patients not only about smoking, alcohol, and drug use but also about supplements of all kinds. Some medical records do use these prompts but they are not as ubiquitous as those for smoking, alcohol, and drug use.

The supplement industry is powerful, but so is the medical industry when it comes to lobbying for change. It is ironic that Lori McClintock was the wife of a congressman. Perhaps the silver lining is future work toward legislation advocating for an end to these tragic deaths from poorly regulated supplements. Alignment with government in pushing for stricter regulations could save lives in the future.

Dr. Apovian is a faculty member, department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension; and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Boston. She disclosed ties with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.



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

The unfortunate death of Lori McClintock, wife of northern California congressman Tom McClintock, shortly after consuming the herbal remedy white mulberry leaf on Dec. 15, 2021, gives us the opportunity to discuss how to better protect the American public from nutritional supplements with claims to aid health. Mulberry leaf has been purported to lower blood glucose levels, cholesterol, and inflammation as well as promote weight loss.

Many people desire to improve their health with concoctions purported to be “natural” or “from nature” instead of seeing a doctor and taking a medication or other therapy that is evidenced-based and backed by approval from the Food and Drug Administration. With the burgeoning prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country (and worldwide) and the lack of a magic bullet that can stop the progression of these life-threatening diseases, many Americans turn to herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to promote weight loss and improve health.

Passed in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed manufacturers of herbal and nutritional supplements to be “off the radar” of government regulators, unless their products have been shown to do harm – which is the government’s burden to prove.

A dietary supplement is defined as a product containing one or more vitamin, mineral, herb, or other botanical; amino acid; or other substance that would increase the total dietary intake of that product.

DSHEA exempted dietary supplements from the rigorous safety and efficacy testing that medications must undergo for various disease states, which is regulated by the FDA.
 

People with obesity may fall prey to dietary supplements’ claims

Persons suffering from obesity and its metabolic sequelae may be susceptible to the claims of dietary supplements because:

• The stigma associated with obesity, including the lack of understanding that obesity is a disease not under a person’s control, may make those with the disease wish to remedy it on their own out of shame and peer pressure.
• Clinicians and doctors traditionally have not been trained in obesity medicine so they aren’t comfortable treating obesity.
• It’s only fairly recently that obesity was recognized as a disease, so many insurance companies still don’t reimburse for obesity treatments, including the agents that can suppress appetite and result in weight loss.

For all of these reasons and more, only 2% or less of the millions of Americans suffering from obesity are treated with an antiobesity agent each year.

This has paved the way for the dietary supplement industry to prey on a desperate population, in much the same way that fad diets continue to attract multitudes of Americans. These supplements, however, carry much more risk than fad diets.

The solution, of course, is better regulation of the supplement industry, but it’s also improvement of how obesity is treated by the medical community.
 

How can clinicians and the community help?

Government, academic, community, clinical, and lay persons are more frequently recognizing obesity as a disease. Stigma will slowly come to a halt, as it has for other diseases such as depression and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Medications that have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy eventually will be prescribed more and covered by healthcare insurance. Clinicians, and specifically physicians, are the most trusted persons in terms of giving medical advice. We need to ask patients whether they are taking supplements and be vocal about their lack of protection against harm, as allowed by DSHEA.

It would not be overkill to add prompts to the medical record to ask patients not only about smoking, alcohol, and drug use but also about supplements of all kinds. Some medical records do use these prompts but they are not as ubiquitous as those for smoking, alcohol, and drug use.

The supplement industry is powerful, but so is the medical industry when it comes to lobbying for change. It is ironic that Lori McClintock was the wife of a congressman. Perhaps the silver lining is future work toward legislation advocating for an end to these tragic deaths from poorly regulated supplements. Alignment with government in pushing for stricter regulations could save lives in the future.

Dr. Apovian is a faculty member, department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension; and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Boston. She disclosed ties with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.



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

Both yoga and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) provide meaningful improvements in worry, anxiety, and insomnia in older adults that last even 6 months after discontinuing treatment, new research suggests.

The study is the first to compare the long-term effects from the two interventions; and the results offer clinicians and patients two effective choices for reducing worry and anxiety, researchers noted.

“Anxiety can be a really big problem for older adults,” lead investigator Suzanne Danhauer, PhD, professor of social sciences and health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“So to find something they can do that lasts ... and has some enduring impact on their quality of life and their mental health, and they’re both nonpharmacologic treatments, I think for a lot of older people that’s really attractive,” Dr. Danhauer said.

The findings are published in the September issue of the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Long-term benefits

The two-stage randomized preference trial included 500 community-dwelling individuals over age 60 who scored 26 or above on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire–Abbreviated (PSWQ-A), indicating heightened anxiety and worry.

Half the group took part in a randomized, controlled trial comparing CBT (n = 125) with yoga (n = 125). The other half participated in a preference trial where they were allowed to choose between CBT (n = 120) and yoga (n = 130).

Participants completed 20 yoga sessions over 10 weeks or 10 weekly CBT calls between May 2017 and November 2018.

Measures used included the PSWQ-A, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form v1.0 – Anxiety 8a, and the PROMIS-29 to assess depression, fatigue, physical function, social participation, and pain.

In 2020, the researchers published results at 11 weeks showing improvements from baseline in all areas. The scores for anxiety and worry were similar between the CBT and yoga groups, but CBT yielded significantly higher improvement in insomnia.

At 37 weeks, about 6 months after the interventions had ended, the investigators found even greater improvements from baseline in all areas measured – except physical function.

However, at that point, there were no significant differences between the two interventions in either the randomized controlled trial or the preference trial. There were also no differences in the results between the two trial designs.

“There were some little differences, but by and large we found both interventions to be efficacious,” Dr. Danhauer said. “This gives clinicians [the] choice to be able to say, ‘you can try either one of these and they’re probably going to help.’ ”
 

Beyond statistically significant

The researchers also found the improvements were not just statistically significant, but were also clinically meaningful for worry, anxiety, and insomnia.

Meaningful changes were defined as a decrease of at least 5.5 points on the PSWQ-A for worry, a decrease of at least 3 points on the PROMIS Anxiety scale for anxiety, and a decrease of at least 6 points in the ISI for insomnia.

At long-term follow-up, the majority of participants in both the CBT and yoga arms of the randomized, controlled trial demonstrated meaningful change in worry (85.7% and 77.6%, respectively), anxiety (82.1% and 80.8%), and insomnia (52.8% and 44.3%).

The majority of participants also reported meaningful improvements in generalized anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and fatigue, but not for physical function, pain interference, or pain intensity.

“That’s the part to me that’s particularly notable. The improvements weren’t just statistically significant, they were clinically meaningful as well,” Dr. Danhauer said.

“When it comes right down to people’s lives, they want differences they can feel and see and not just what a P value looks like,” she added.
 

Real-world impact

In an accompanying editorial, Carmen Andreescu, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed that the results have “real-world impact.”

“Clinicians can direct their patients toward interventions that may be beneficial, consolidate the results over time and avoid fueling the well-trained worry cognitive loop with concerns related to potential side effects,” Dr. Andreescu wrote.

She adds that interventions such as these “may increase accessibility and provide relief for the immediate suffering of our patients.”

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Program. Dr. Danhauer and Dr. Andreescu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both yoga and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) provide meaningful improvements in worry, anxiety, and insomnia in older adults that last even 6 months after discontinuing treatment, new research suggests.

The study is the first to compare the long-term effects from the two interventions; and the results offer clinicians and patients two effective choices for reducing worry and anxiety, researchers noted.

“Anxiety can be a really big problem for older adults,” lead investigator Suzanne Danhauer, PhD, professor of social sciences and health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“So to find something they can do that lasts ... and has some enduring impact on their quality of life and their mental health, and they’re both nonpharmacologic treatments, I think for a lot of older people that’s really attractive,” Dr. Danhauer said.

The findings are published in the September issue of the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Long-term benefits

The two-stage randomized preference trial included 500 community-dwelling individuals over age 60 who scored 26 or above on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire–Abbreviated (PSWQ-A), indicating heightened anxiety and worry.

Half the group took part in a randomized, controlled trial comparing CBT (n = 125) with yoga (n = 125). The other half participated in a preference trial where they were allowed to choose between CBT (n = 120) and yoga (n = 130).

Participants completed 20 yoga sessions over 10 weeks or 10 weekly CBT calls between May 2017 and November 2018.

Measures used included the PSWQ-A, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form v1.0 – Anxiety 8a, and the PROMIS-29 to assess depression, fatigue, physical function, social participation, and pain.

In 2020, the researchers published results at 11 weeks showing improvements from baseline in all areas. The scores for anxiety and worry were similar between the CBT and yoga groups, but CBT yielded significantly higher improvement in insomnia.

At 37 weeks, about 6 months after the interventions had ended, the investigators found even greater improvements from baseline in all areas measured – except physical function.

However, at that point, there were no significant differences between the two interventions in either the randomized controlled trial or the preference trial. There were also no differences in the results between the two trial designs.

“There were some little differences, but by and large we found both interventions to be efficacious,” Dr. Danhauer said. “This gives clinicians [the] choice to be able to say, ‘you can try either one of these and they’re probably going to help.’ ”
 

Beyond statistically significant

The researchers also found the improvements were not just statistically significant, but were also clinically meaningful for worry, anxiety, and insomnia.

Meaningful changes were defined as a decrease of at least 5.5 points on the PSWQ-A for worry, a decrease of at least 3 points on the PROMIS Anxiety scale for anxiety, and a decrease of at least 6 points in the ISI for insomnia.

At long-term follow-up, the majority of participants in both the CBT and yoga arms of the randomized, controlled trial demonstrated meaningful change in worry (85.7% and 77.6%, respectively), anxiety (82.1% and 80.8%), and insomnia (52.8% and 44.3%).

The majority of participants also reported meaningful improvements in generalized anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and fatigue, but not for physical function, pain interference, or pain intensity.

“That’s the part to me that’s particularly notable. The improvements weren’t just statistically significant, they were clinically meaningful as well,” Dr. Danhauer said.

“When it comes right down to people’s lives, they want differences they can feel and see and not just what a P value looks like,” she added.
 

Real-world impact

In an accompanying editorial, Carmen Andreescu, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed that the results have “real-world impact.”

“Clinicians can direct their patients toward interventions that may be beneficial, consolidate the results over time and avoid fueling the well-trained worry cognitive loop with concerns related to potential side effects,” Dr. Andreescu wrote.

She adds that interventions such as these “may increase accessibility and provide relief for the immediate suffering of our patients.”

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Program. Dr. Danhauer and Dr. Andreescu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both yoga and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) provide meaningful improvements in worry, anxiety, and insomnia in older adults that last even 6 months after discontinuing treatment, new research suggests.

The study is the first to compare the long-term effects from the two interventions; and the results offer clinicians and patients two effective choices for reducing worry and anxiety, researchers noted.

“Anxiety can be a really big problem for older adults,” lead investigator Suzanne Danhauer, PhD, professor of social sciences and health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“So to find something they can do that lasts ... and has some enduring impact on their quality of life and their mental health, and they’re both nonpharmacologic treatments, I think for a lot of older people that’s really attractive,” Dr. Danhauer said.

The findings are published in the September issue of the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Long-term benefits

The two-stage randomized preference trial included 500 community-dwelling individuals over age 60 who scored 26 or above on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire–Abbreviated (PSWQ-A), indicating heightened anxiety and worry.

Half the group took part in a randomized, controlled trial comparing CBT (n = 125) with yoga (n = 125). The other half participated in a preference trial where they were allowed to choose between CBT (n = 120) and yoga (n = 130).

Participants completed 20 yoga sessions over 10 weeks or 10 weekly CBT calls between May 2017 and November 2018.

Measures used included the PSWQ-A, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form v1.0 – Anxiety 8a, and the PROMIS-29 to assess depression, fatigue, physical function, social participation, and pain.

In 2020, the researchers published results at 11 weeks showing improvements from baseline in all areas. The scores for anxiety and worry were similar between the CBT and yoga groups, but CBT yielded significantly higher improvement in insomnia.

At 37 weeks, about 6 months after the interventions had ended, the investigators found even greater improvements from baseline in all areas measured – except physical function.

However, at that point, there were no significant differences between the two interventions in either the randomized controlled trial or the preference trial. There were also no differences in the results between the two trial designs.

“There were some little differences, but by and large we found both interventions to be efficacious,” Dr. Danhauer said. “This gives clinicians [the] choice to be able to say, ‘you can try either one of these and they’re probably going to help.’ ”
 

Beyond statistically significant

The researchers also found the improvements were not just statistically significant, but were also clinically meaningful for worry, anxiety, and insomnia.

Meaningful changes were defined as a decrease of at least 5.5 points on the PSWQ-A for worry, a decrease of at least 3 points on the PROMIS Anxiety scale for anxiety, and a decrease of at least 6 points in the ISI for insomnia.

At long-term follow-up, the majority of participants in both the CBT and yoga arms of the randomized, controlled trial demonstrated meaningful change in worry (85.7% and 77.6%, respectively), anxiety (82.1% and 80.8%), and insomnia (52.8% and 44.3%).

The majority of participants also reported meaningful improvements in generalized anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and fatigue, but not for physical function, pain interference, or pain intensity.

“That’s the part to me that’s particularly notable. The improvements weren’t just statistically significant, they were clinically meaningful as well,” Dr. Danhauer said.

“When it comes right down to people’s lives, they want differences they can feel and see and not just what a P value looks like,” she added.
 

Real-world impact

In an accompanying editorial, Carmen Andreescu, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed that the results have “real-world impact.”

“Clinicians can direct their patients toward interventions that may be beneficial, consolidate the results over time and avoid fueling the well-trained worry cognitive loop with concerns related to potential side effects,” Dr. Andreescu wrote.

She adds that interventions such as these “may increase accessibility and provide relief for the immediate suffering of our patients.”

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Program. Dr. Danhauer and Dr. Andreescu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

Warning labels on alcoholic products need to be updated to spell out details of potential harm in order to make them more effective, two U.S. researchers have said.

The current labeling, which has not changed for 30 years, focuses on risks during pregnancy and with operating machinery and includes a vague statement that alcohol “may cause health problems.”

This is “so understated that it borders on being misleading,” the two researchers argued.

The science related to the use of alcohol has moved on, and there is now firm evidence of harm. Alcohol has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  as a group 1 carcinogen and has been linked to an increased risk of many types of cancer. Drinking alcohol has also been linked to a wide range of other diseases, from liver disease to pancreatitis to some types of heart disease, the authors noted.

Yet the general public is mostly unaware of the most serious health risks that are associated with alcohol consumption, they pointed out.

“We believe Americans deserve the opportunity to make well-informed decisions about their alcohol consumption,” said Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Marissa G. Hall, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Designing and adopting new alcohol warning labels should therefore be a research and policy priority,” they added.

The two researchers set out their arguments in a perspective article published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Alcohol consumption and its associated harms are reaching a crisis point in the United States,” they pointed out.

It now accounts for more than 140,000 deaths per year in the United States, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The COVID-19 pandemic has made the problem even worse – there was a 25% increase in alcohol-related deaths during 2020.

New, well-designed warning labels on alcohol is a common sense strategy for providing consumers with information and reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm, the authors suggested.
 

Warning Labels Prominently Displayed

Warning labels are most effective when they are prominently displayed, when they include pictures of some type, and when the messages alternate so as to avoid any one message from becoming “stale,” the authors noted. This approach has worked well with cigarette packs. This type of warning has increased smoking quit rates in comparison with smaller, side-of-pack, text-only warning labels.

There is some evidence that this type of labeling can be effective for alcohol. When large, pictorial warnings about cancer risk were temporarily added to the front of alcohol containers in some stores in Yukon, Canada, alcohol sales declined by 6%-10%, they pointed out.

However, pressure from the alcohol industry led to changes in the Yukon project, and while a general health warning remains, the label about increased cancer risk was removed.

The alcohol industry has tried to suppress efforts to educate the public, and this has created problems in conveying health information to consumers, the authors noted. The industry spends more than $1 billion each year to market its products in the United States.

The authors caution that without government intervention, the alcohol industry has little incentive to communicate the risks.

Some companies even link their products to health campaigns, such as selling pink ribbon–themed alcoholic drinks during October to promote their efforts to raise funds for breast cancer research, despite compelling evidence linking alcohol to an increased risk of breast cancer.
 

Petition at Congress calling for new labels

This is not the first call for a change in the warning labels on alcohol.

Last year, a number of medical groups petitioned Congress for a new cancer-specific warning label to be displayed on all alcoholic beverages.

The petition was signed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in collaboration with the American Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Alcohol Justice, and the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance.

They are advocating for a label that would say: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

That petition is still pending, Melissa Maitin-Shepard, MPP, policy expert at the AICR, said in an interview.

In addition, the AICR is “working to advocate for the addition of a cancer warning label to alcoholic beverages through multiple channels,” she said. “Given the strong evidence linking alcohol use with at least six types of cancer – and low awareness of the alcohol and cancer connection – there is a tremendous need to educate the public about alcohol and cancer risk.”

Noelle K. LoConte, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who is the lead author of ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer risk, emphasized that there is no doubt that alcohol is a carcinogen, that it causes about 5% of cancers globally, and that its use has increased during the pandemic.

“Initiatives that raise awareness around this issue could help generate more public support for policies that limit alcohol access and thereby decrease the number of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “In ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer, we recommend several key strategies to reduce high-risk alcohol consumption, including limiting youth access to alcohol, giving municipalities more control over alcohol outlet density and points of sale, and increasing taxes on alcohol.”

However, she also had a small criticism of one point in the NEJM article. It shows a sample infographic that lists gastric cancer as being caused by alcohol. “But as of today, gastric cancer is not on the IARC list of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “I think this brings to mind one critical point, that these warning labels have to contain scientifically established facts.”

Dr. Grummon and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Warning labels on alcoholic products need to be updated to spell out details of potential harm in order to make them more effective, two U.S. researchers have said.

The current labeling, which has not changed for 30 years, focuses on risks during pregnancy and with operating machinery and includes a vague statement that alcohol “may cause health problems.”

This is “so understated that it borders on being misleading,” the two researchers argued.

The science related to the use of alcohol has moved on, and there is now firm evidence of harm. Alcohol has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  as a group 1 carcinogen and has been linked to an increased risk of many types of cancer. Drinking alcohol has also been linked to a wide range of other diseases, from liver disease to pancreatitis to some types of heart disease, the authors noted.

Yet the general public is mostly unaware of the most serious health risks that are associated with alcohol consumption, they pointed out.

“We believe Americans deserve the opportunity to make well-informed decisions about their alcohol consumption,” said Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Marissa G. Hall, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Designing and adopting new alcohol warning labels should therefore be a research and policy priority,” they added.

The two researchers set out their arguments in a perspective article published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Alcohol consumption and its associated harms are reaching a crisis point in the United States,” they pointed out.

It now accounts for more than 140,000 deaths per year in the United States, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The COVID-19 pandemic has made the problem even worse – there was a 25% increase in alcohol-related deaths during 2020.

New, well-designed warning labels on alcohol is a common sense strategy for providing consumers with information and reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm, the authors suggested.
 

Warning Labels Prominently Displayed

Warning labels are most effective when they are prominently displayed, when they include pictures of some type, and when the messages alternate so as to avoid any one message from becoming “stale,” the authors noted. This approach has worked well with cigarette packs. This type of warning has increased smoking quit rates in comparison with smaller, side-of-pack, text-only warning labels.

There is some evidence that this type of labeling can be effective for alcohol. When large, pictorial warnings about cancer risk were temporarily added to the front of alcohol containers in some stores in Yukon, Canada, alcohol sales declined by 6%-10%, they pointed out.

However, pressure from the alcohol industry led to changes in the Yukon project, and while a general health warning remains, the label about increased cancer risk was removed.

The alcohol industry has tried to suppress efforts to educate the public, and this has created problems in conveying health information to consumers, the authors noted. The industry spends more than $1 billion each year to market its products in the United States.

The authors caution that without government intervention, the alcohol industry has little incentive to communicate the risks.

Some companies even link their products to health campaigns, such as selling pink ribbon–themed alcoholic drinks during October to promote their efforts to raise funds for breast cancer research, despite compelling evidence linking alcohol to an increased risk of breast cancer.
 

Petition at Congress calling for new labels

This is not the first call for a change in the warning labels on alcohol.

Last year, a number of medical groups petitioned Congress for a new cancer-specific warning label to be displayed on all alcoholic beverages.

The petition was signed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in collaboration with the American Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Alcohol Justice, and the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance.

They are advocating for a label that would say: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

That petition is still pending, Melissa Maitin-Shepard, MPP, policy expert at the AICR, said in an interview.

In addition, the AICR is “working to advocate for the addition of a cancer warning label to alcoholic beverages through multiple channels,” she said. “Given the strong evidence linking alcohol use with at least six types of cancer – and low awareness of the alcohol and cancer connection – there is a tremendous need to educate the public about alcohol and cancer risk.”

Noelle K. LoConte, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who is the lead author of ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer risk, emphasized that there is no doubt that alcohol is a carcinogen, that it causes about 5% of cancers globally, and that its use has increased during the pandemic.

“Initiatives that raise awareness around this issue could help generate more public support for policies that limit alcohol access and thereby decrease the number of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “In ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer, we recommend several key strategies to reduce high-risk alcohol consumption, including limiting youth access to alcohol, giving municipalities more control over alcohol outlet density and points of sale, and increasing taxes on alcohol.”

However, she also had a small criticism of one point in the NEJM article. It shows a sample infographic that lists gastric cancer as being caused by alcohol. “But as of today, gastric cancer is not on the IARC list of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “I think this brings to mind one critical point, that these warning labels have to contain scientifically established facts.”

Dr. Grummon and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Warning labels on alcoholic products need to be updated to spell out details of potential harm in order to make them more effective, two U.S. researchers have said.

The current labeling, which has not changed for 30 years, focuses on risks during pregnancy and with operating machinery and includes a vague statement that alcohol “may cause health problems.”

This is “so understated that it borders on being misleading,” the two researchers argued.

The science related to the use of alcohol has moved on, and there is now firm evidence of harm. Alcohol has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  as a group 1 carcinogen and has been linked to an increased risk of many types of cancer. Drinking alcohol has also been linked to a wide range of other diseases, from liver disease to pancreatitis to some types of heart disease, the authors noted.

Yet the general public is mostly unaware of the most serious health risks that are associated with alcohol consumption, they pointed out.

“We believe Americans deserve the opportunity to make well-informed decisions about their alcohol consumption,” said Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Marissa G. Hall, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Designing and adopting new alcohol warning labels should therefore be a research and policy priority,” they added.

The two researchers set out their arguments in a perspective article published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Alcohol consumption and its associated harms are reaching a crisis point in the United States,” they pointed out.

It now accounts for more than 140,000 deaths per year in the United States, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The COVID-19 pandemic has made the problem even worse – there was a 25% increase in alcohol-related deaths during 2020.

New, well-designed warning labels on alcohol is a common sense strategy for providing consumers with information and reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm, the authors suggested.
 

Warning Labels Prominently Displayed

Warning labels are most effective when they are prominently displayed, when they include pictures of some type, and when the messages alternate so as to avoid any one message from becoming “stale,” the authors noted. This approach has worked well with cigarette packs. This type of warning has increased smoking quit rates in comparison with smaller, side-of-pack, text-only warning labels.

There is some evidence that this type of labeling can be effective for alcohol. When large, pictorial warnings about cancer risk were temporarily added to the front of alcohol containers in some stores in Yukon, Canada, alcohol sales declined by 6%-10%, they pointed out.

However, pressure from the alcohol industry led to changes in the Yukon project, and while a general health warning remains, the label about increased cancer risk was removed.

The alcohol industry has tried to suppress efforts to educate the public, and this has created problems in conveying health information to consumers, the authors noted. The industry spends more than $1 billion each year to market its products in the United States.

The authors caution that without government intervention, the alcohol industry has little incentive to communicate the risks.

Some companies even link their products to health campaigns, such as selling pink ribbon–themed alcoholic drinks during October to promote their efforts to raise funds for breast cancer research, despite compelling evidence linking alcohol to an increased risk of breast cancer.
 

Petition at Congress calling for new labels

This is not the first call for a change in the warning labels on alcohol.

Last year, a number of medical groups petitioned Congress for a new cancer-specific warning label to be displayed on all alcoholic beverages.

The petition was signed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in collaboration with the American Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Alcohol Justice, and the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance.

They are advocating for a label that would say: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

That petition is still pending, Melissa Maitin-Shepard, MPP, policy expert at the AICR, said in an interview.

In addition, the AICR is “working to advocate for the addition of a cancer warning label to alcoholic beverages through multiple channels,” she said. “Given the strong evidence linking alcohol use with at least six types of cancer – and low awareness of the alcohol and cancer connection – there is a tremendous need to educate the public about alcohol and cancer risk.”

Noelle K. LoConte, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who is the lead author of ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer risk, emphasized that there is no doubt that alcohol is a carcinogen, that it causes about 5% of cancers globally, and that its use has increased during the pandemic.

“Initiatives that raise awareness around this issue could help generate more public support for policies that limit alcohol access and thereby decrease the number of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “In ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer, we recommend several key strategies to reduce high-risk alcohol consumption, including limiting youth access to alcohol, giving municipalities more control over alcohol outlet density and points of sale, and increasing taxes on alcohol.”

However, she also had a small criticism of one point in the NEJM article. It shows a sample infographic that lists gastric cancer as being caused by alcohol. “But as of today, gastric cancer is not on the IARC list of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “I think this brings to mind one critical point, that these warning labels have to contain scientifically established facts.”

Dr. Grummon and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Postoperative radiotherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of endometrial cancer, but the typical 5-week regimen can be time consuming and expensive. A pilot study found that delivery of approximately the same dose over just two and a half weeks, known as hypofractionation, had good short-term toxicity outcomes.

It isn’t yet clear if the protocol will be as effective as the standard course, and long-term side effects may still be an issue.

Nevertheless, shortening the duration of radiotherapy could have benefits, especially in advanced uterine cancer, where chemotherapy is employed against distant metastases. Following surgery, there is a risk of both local recurrence and distant metastasis, complicating the choice of initial treatment. “Chemo can be several months long and radiation is typically several weeks. Therefore a shortened radiation schedule may have potential benefits, especially if there is an opportunity for this to be delivered earlier without delaying or interrupting chemotherapy, for example,” said lead study author Eric Leung, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at the University of Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

The research was published in JAMA Oncology.

Delivery of hypofractionation is tricky, according to Dr. Leung. “Gynecological cancer patients were treated with hypofractionation radiation to the pelvis which included the vagina, paravaginal tissues and pelvic lymph nodes. With this relatively large pelvic volume with surrounding normal tissues, this requires a highly focused radiation treatment with advanced technology,” said Dr. Leung. The study protocol employed stereotactic technique to deliver 30 Gy in 5 fractions.

Hypofractionation could be beneficial in reduction of travel time and time spent in hospital, as well as reducing financial burden and increasing quality of life. These benefits have taken on a larger role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although the findings are encouraging, they are preliminary, according to Vonetta Williams, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. “I would caution that all they’ve done is presented preliminary toxicity data, so we don’t have any proof yet that it is equally effective (compared to standard protocol), and their study cannot answer that at any rate because it was not designed to answer that question,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. She noted that long-term follow-up is needed to measure bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, vaginal stenosis, and other side effects.

It is also uncertain whether hypofractionated doses are actually equivalent to the standard dose. “We know that they’re roughly equivalent, but that is very much a question if they are equivalent in terms of efficacy. I don’t know that I would be confident that they are. That’s probably what would give most radiation oncologists pause, because we don’t have any data to say that it is (equivalent). Although it would be nice to shorten treatment, and I think it would certainly be better for patients, I want to caution that we want to do so once we know what the toxicity and the outcomes really are,” said Dr. Williams.

The researchers enrolled 61 patients with a median age of 66 years. Thirty-nine had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 had serous or clear cell, 3 had carcinosarcoma, and 4 had dedifferentiated disease. Sixteen patients underwent sequential chemotherapy, and 9 underwent additional vault brachytherapy. Over a median follow-up of 9 months, 54% had a worst gastrointestinal side effect of grade 1, while 13% had a worst side effect of grade 2. Among worst genitourinary side effects, 41% had grade 1 and 3% had grade 2. One patient had acute grade 3 diarrhea at fraction 5, but this resolved at follow-up. One patient had diarrhea scores that were both clinically and statistically significantly worse than baseline at fraction 5, and this improved at follow-up.

Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were generally good. Of all measures, only diarrhea was clinically and statistically worse by fraction 5, and improvement was seen at 6 weeks and 3 months. Global health status was consistent throughout treatment and follow-up. There was no change in sexual and vaginal symptoms.

The study authors reported grants, consulting, and personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Williams reported having no disclosures.

Postoperative radiotherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of endometrial cancer, but the typical 5-week regimen can be time consuming and expensive. A pilot study found that delivery of approximately the same dose over just two and a half weeks, known as hypofractionation, had good short-term toxicity outcomes.

It isn’t yet clear if the protocol will be as effective as the standard course, and long-term side effects may still be an issue.

Nevertheless, shortening the duration of radiotherapy could have benefits, especially in advanced uterine cancer, where chemotherapy is employed against distant metastases. Following surgery, there is a risk of both local recurrence and distant metastasis, complicating the choice of initial treatment. “Chemo can be several months long and radiation is typically several weeks. Therefore a shortened radiation schedule may have potential benefits, especially if there is an opportunity for this to be delivered earlier without delaying or interrupting chemotherapy, for example,” said lead study author Eric Leung, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at the University of Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

The research was published in JAMA Oncology.

Delivery of hypofractionation is tricky, according to Dr. Leung. “Gynecological cancer patients were treated with hypofractionation radiation to the pelvis which included the vagina, paravaginal tissues and pelvic lymph nodes. With this relatively large pelvic volume with surrounding normal tissues, this requires a highly focused radiation treatment with advanced technology,” said Dr. Leung. The study protocol employed stereotactic technique to deliver 30 Gy in 5 fractions.

Hypofractionation could be beneficial in reduction of travel time and time spent in hospital, as well as reducing financial burden and increasing quality of life. These benefits have taken on a larger role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although the findings are encouraging, they are preliminary, according to Vonetta Williams, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. “I would caution that all they’ve done is presented preliminary toxicity data, so we don’t have any proof yet that it is equally effective (compared to standard protocol), and their study cannot answer that at any rate because it was not designed to answer that question,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. She noted that long-term follow-up is needed to measure bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, vaginal stenosis, and other side effects.

It is also uncertain whether hypofractionated doses are actually equivalent to the standard dose. “We know that they’re roughly equivalent, but that is very much a question if they are equivalent in terms of efficacy. I don’t know that I would be confident that they are. That’s probably what would give most radiation oncologists pause, because we don’t have any data to say that it is (equivalent). Although it would be nice to shorten treatment, and I think it would certainly be better for patients, I want to caution that we want to do so once we know what the toxicity and the outcomes really are,” said Dr. Williams.

The researchers enrolled 61 patients with a median age of 66 years. Thirty-nine had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 had serous or clear cell, 3 had carcinosarcoma, and 4 had dedifferentiated disease. Sixteen patients underwent sequential chemotherapy, and 9 underwent additional vault brachytherapy. Over a median follow-up of 9 months, 54% had a worst gastrointestinal side effect of grade 1, while 13% had a worst side effect of grade 2. Among worst genitourinary side effects, 41% had grade 1 and 3% had grade 2. One patient had acute grade 3 diarrhea at fraction 5, but this resolved at follow-up. One patient had diarrhea scores that were both clinically and statistically significantly worse than baseline at fraction 5, and this improved at follow-up.

Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were generally good. Of all measures, only diarrhea was clinically and statistically worse by fraction 5, and improvement was seen at 6 weeks and 3 months. Global health status was consistent throughout treatment and follow-up. There was no change in sexual and vaginal symptoms.

The study authors reported grants, consulting, and personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Williams reported having no disclosures.

Postoperative radiotherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of endometrial cancer, but the typical 5-week regimen can be time consuming and expensive. A pilot study found that delivery of approximately the same dose over just two and a half weeks, known as hypofractionation, had good short-term toxicity outcomes.

It isn’t yet clear if the protocol will be as effective as the standard course, and long-term side effects may still be an issue.

Nevertheless, shortening the duration of radiotherapy could have benefits, especially in advanced uterine cancer, where chemotherapy is employed against distant metastases. Following surgery, there is a risk of both local recurrence and distant metastasis, complicating the choice of initial treatment. “Chemo can be several months long and radiation is typically several weeks. Therefore a shortened radiation schedule may have potential benefits, especially if there is an opportunity for this to be delivered earlier without delaying or interrupting chemotherapy, for example,” said lead study author Eric Leung, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at the University of Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

The research was published in JAMA Oncology.

Delivery of hypofractionation is tricky, according to Dr. Leung. “Gynecological cancer patients were treated with hypofractionation radiation to the pelvis which included the vagina, paravaginal tissues and pelvic lymph nodes. With this relatively large pelvic volume with surrounding normal tissues, this requires a highly focused radiation treatment with advanced technology,” said Dr. Leung. The study protocol employed stereotactic technique to deliver 30 Gy in 5 fractions.

Hypofractionation could be beneficial in reduction of travel time and time spent in hospital, as well as reducing financial burden and increasing quality of life. These benefits have taken on a larger role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although the findings are encouraging, they are preliminary, according to Vonetta Williams, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. “I would caution that all they’ve done is presented preliminary toxicity data, so we don’t have any proof yet that it is equally effective (compared to standard protocol), and their study cannot answer that at any rate because it was not designed to answer that question,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. She noted that long-term follow-up is needed to measure bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, vaginal stenosis, and other side effects.

It is also uncertain whether hypofractionated doses are actually equivalent to the standard dose. “We know that they’re roughly equivalent, but that is very much a question if they are equivalent in terms of efficacy. I don’t know that I would be confident that they are. That’s probably what would give most radiation oncologists pause, because we don’t have any data to say that it is (equivalent). Although it would be nice to shorten treatment, and I think it would certainly be better for patients, I want to caution that we want to do so once we know what the toxicity and the outcomes really are,” said Dr. Williams.

The researchers enrolled 61 patients with a median age of 66 years. Thirty-nine had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 had serous or clear cell, 3 had carcinosarcoma, and 4 had dedifferentiated disease. Sixteen patients underwent sequential chemotherapy, and 9 underwent additional vault brachytherapy. Over a median follow-up of 9 months, 54% had a worst gastrointestinal side effect of grade 1, while 13% had a worst side effect of grade 2. Among worst genitourinary side effects, 41% had grade 1 and 3% had grade 2. One patient had acute grade 3 diarrhea at fraction 5, but this resolved at follow-up. One patient had diarrhea scores that were both clinically and statistically significantly worse than baseline at fraction 5, and this improved at follow-up.

Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were generally good. Of all measures, only diarrhea was clinically and statistically worse by fraction 5, and improvement was seen at 6 weeks and 3 months. Global health status was consistent throughout treatment and follow-up. There was no change in sexual and vaginal symptoms.

The study authors reported grants, consulting, and personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Williams reported having no disclosures.

The kids aren’t alright (at identifying fake news online)

If there’s one thing today’s teenagers are good at, it’s the Internet. What with their TokTiks, Fortnights, and memes whose lifespans are measured in milliseconds, it’s only natural that a contingent of people who have never known a world where the Internet wasn’t omnipresent would be highly skilled at navigating the dense, labyrinthine virtual world and the many falsehoods contained within.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve been duped, bamboozled, and smeckledorfed. New research from Slovakia suggests the opposite, in fact: Teenagers are just as bad as the rest of us, if not worse, at distinguishing between fake and real online health messaging.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images Plus

For the study, 300 teenagers aged 16-19 years old were shown a group of messages about the health-promoting effects of fruits and vegetables; these messages were either false, true and neutral, or true with some sort of editing (a clickbait title or grammar mistakes) to mask their trustworthiness. Just under half of the subjects identified and trusted the true neutral messages over fake messages, while 41% couldn’t tell the difference and 11% trusted the fake messages more. In addition, they couldn’t tell the difference between fake and true messages when the content seemed plausible.

In a bit of good news, teenagers were just as likely to trust the edited true messages as the true neutral ones, except in instances when the edited message had a clickbait title. They were much less likely to trust those.

Based on their subjects’ rather poor performance, the study authors suggested teenagers go through health literacy and media literacy training, as well as develop their analytical and scientific reasoning. The LOTME staff rather suspects the study authors have never met a teenager. The only thing teenagers are going to get out of health literacy training is fodder for memes to put up on Myspace. Myspace is still a thing, right? We’re not old, we swear.
 

Can a computer help deliver babies?

Delivering babies can be a complicated business. Most doctors and midwives rely on their years of experience and training to make certain decisions for mothers in labor, but an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm could make the entire process easier and safer.

©Paul Hakimata/thinkstockphotos.com

Researchers from the Mayo Clinic recently reported that using an AI to analyze women’s labor patterns was very successful in determining whether a vaginal or cesarean delivery was appropriate.

They examined over 700 factors and over 66,000 deliveries from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s multicenter Consortium on Safe Labor database to produce a risk-prediction model that may “provide an alternative to conventional labor charts and promote individualization of clinical decisions using baseline and labor characteristics of each patient,” they said in a written statement from the clinic.

It is hoped that the AI will reduce the risk of possible complications and the costs associated with maternal mortality. The AI also could be a significant tool for doctors and midwives in rural areas to determine when a patient needs to be moved to a location with a higher level of care.

“We believe the algorithm will work in real time, meaning every input of new data during an expectant woman’s labor automatically recalculates the risk of adverse outcome,” said senior author Abimbola Famuyide, MD, of the Mayo Clinic.

If it all works out, many lives and dollars could be saved, thanks to science.
 

Democracy, meet COVID-19

Everywhere you look, it seems, someone is trying to keep someone else from doing something: Don’t carry a gun. Don’t get an abortion. Don’t drive so fast. Don’t inhale that whipped cream. Don’t get a vaccine. Don’t put that in your mouth.

One of the biggies these days is voting rights. Some people are trying to prevent other people from voting. But why? Well, turns out that turnout can be bad for your health … at least during a worldwide pandemic event.

mohamed mahmoud hassan

The evidence for that claim comes from researchers who examined the Italian national constitutional referendum conducted in September 2020 along with elections for assembly representatives in 7 of the country’s 20 regions and for mayors in about 12% of municipalities. The combination mattered: Voter turnout was higher in the municipalities that voted for both the referendum and local elections (69%), compared with municipalities voting only for the referendum (47%), the investigators reported in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

Also occurring in September of 2020 was, as we mentioned, a worldwide pandemic event. You may have heard about it.

The investigators considered the differences in election turnout between the various municipalities and compared them with new weekly COVID-19 infections at the municipality level. “Our model shows that something as fundamental as casting a vote can come at a cost,” investigator Giuseppe Moscelli, PhD, of the University of Surrey (England) said in a written statement.

What was the cost? Each 1% increase in turnout, they found, amounted to an average 1.1% increase in COVID infections after the elections.

See? More people voting means more COVID, which is bad. Which brings us to today’s lesson in people preventing other people from doing something. Don’t let COVID win. Stay in your house and never come out. And get that smeckledorf out of your mouth. You don’t know where it’s been.

The kids aren’t alright (at identifying fake news online)

If there’s one thing today’s teenagers are good at, it’s the Internet. What with their TokTiks, Fortnights, and memes whose lifespans are measured in milliseconds, it’s only natural that a contingent of people who have never known a world where the Internet wasn’t omnipresent would be highly skilled at navigating the dense, labyrinthine virtual world and the many falsehoods contained within.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve been duped, bamboozled, and smeckledorfed. New research from Slovakia suggests the opposite, in fact: Teenagers are just as bad as the rest of us, if not worse, at distinguishing between fake and real online health messaging.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images Plus

For the study, 300 teenagers aged 16-19 years old were shown a group of messages about the health-promoting effects of fruits and vegetables; these messages were either false, true and neutral, or true with some sort of editing (a clickbait title or grammar mistakes) to mask their trustworthiness. Just under half of the subjects identified and trusted the true neutral messages over fake messages, while 41% couldn’t tell the difference and 11% trusted the fake messages more. In addition, they couldn’t tell the difference between fake and true messages when the content seemed plausible.

In a bit of good news, teenagers were just as likely to trust the edited true messages as the true neutral ones, except in instances when the edited message had a clickbait title. They were much less likely to trust those.

Based on their subjects’ rather poor performance, the study authors suggested teenagers go through health literacy and media literacy training, as well as develop their analytical and scientific reasoning. The LOTME staff rather suspects the study authors have never met a teenager. The only thing teenagers are going to get out of health literacy training is fodder for memes to put up on Myspace. Myspace is still a thing, right? We’re not old, we swear.
 

Can a computer help deliver babies?

Delivering babies can be a complicated business. Most doctors and midwives rely on their years of experience and training to make certain decisions for mothers in labor, but an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm could make the entire process easier and safer.

©Paul Hakimata/thinkstockphotos.com

Researchers from the Mayo Clinic recently reported that using an AI to analyze women’s labor patterns was very successful in determining whether a vaginal or cesarean delivery was appropriate.

They examined over 700 factors and over 66,000 deliveries from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s multicenter Consortium on Safe Labor database to produce a risk-prediction model that may “provide an alternative to conventional labor charts and promote individualization of clinical decisions using baseline and labor characteristics of each patient,” they said in a written statement from the clinic.

It is hoped that the AI will reduce the risk of possible complications and the costs associated with maternal mortality. The AI also could be a significant tool for doctors and midwives in rural areas to determine when a patient needs to be moved to a location with a higher level of care.

“We believe the algorithm will work in real time, meaning every input of new data during an expectant woman’s labor automatically recalculates the risk of adverse outcome,” said senior author Abimbola Famuyide, MD, of the Mayo Clinic.

If it all works out, many lives and dollars could be saved, thanks to science.
 

Democracy, meet COVID-19

Everywhere you look, it seems, someone is trying to keep someone else from doing something: Don’t carry a gun. Don’t get an abortion. Don’t drive so fast. Don’t inhale that whipped cream. Don’t get a vaccine. Don’t put that in your mouth.

One of the biggies these days is voting rights. Some people are trying to prevent other people from voting. But why? Well, turns out that turnout can be bad for your health … at least during a worldwide pandemic event.

mohamed mahmoud hassan

The evidence for that claim comes from researchers who examined the Italian national constitutional referendum conducted in September 2020 along with elections for assembly representatives in 7 of the country’s 20 regions and for mayors in about 12% of municipalities. The combination mattered: Voter turnout was higher in the municipalities that voted for both the referendum and local elections (69%), compared with municipalities voting only for the referendum (47%), the investigators reported in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

Also occurring in September of 2020 was, as we mentioned, a worldwide pandemic event. You may have heard about it.

The investigators considered the differences in election turnout between the various municipalities and compared them with new weekly COVID-19 infections at the municipality level. “Our model shows that something as fundamental as casting a vote can come at a cost,” investigator Giuseppe Moscelli, PhD, of the University of Surrey (England) said in a written statement.

What was the cost? Each 1% increase in turnout, they found, amounted to an average 1.1% increase in COVID infections after the elections.

See? More people voting means more COVID, which is bad. Which brings us to today’s lesson in people preventing other people from doing something. Don’t let COVID win. Stay in your house and never come out. And get that smeckledorf out of your mouth. You don’t know where it’s been.

The kids aren’t alright (at identifying fake news online)

If there’s one thing today’s teenagers are good at, it’s the Internet. What with their TokTiks, Fortnights, and memes whose lifespans are measured in milliseconds, it’s only natural that a contingent of people who have never known a world where the Internet wasn’t omnipresent would be highly skilled at navigating the dense, labyrinthine virtual world and the many falsehoods contained within.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve been duped, bamboozled, and smeckledorfed. New research from Slovakia suggests the opposite, in fact: Teenagers are just as bad as the rest of us, if not worse, at distinguishing between fake and real online health messaging.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images Plus

For the study, 300 teenagers aged 16-19 years old were shown a group of messages about the health-promoting effects of fruits and vegetables; these messages were either false, true and neutral, or true with some sort of editing (a clickbait title or grammar mistakes) to mask their trustworthiness. Just under half of the subjects identified and trusted the true neutral messages over fake messages, while 41% couldn’t tell the difference and 11% trusted the fake messages more. In addition, they couldn’t tell the difference between fake and true messages when the content seemed plausible.

In a bit of good news, teenagers were just as likely to trust the edited true messages as the true neutral ones, except in instances when the edited message had a clickbait title. They were much less likely to trust those.

Based on their subjects’ rather poor performance, the study authors suggested teenagers go through health literacy and media literacy training, as well as develop their analytical and scientific reasoning. The LOTME staff rather suspects the study authors have never met a teenager. The only thing teenagers are going to get out of health literacy training is fodder for memes to put up on Myspace. Myspace is still a thing, right? We’re not old, we swear.
 

Can a computer help deliver babies?

Delivering babies can be a complicated business. Most doctors and midwives rely on their years of experience and training to make certain decisions for mothers in labor, but an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm could make the entire process easier and safer.

©Paul Hakimata/thinkstockphotos.com

Researchers from the Mayo Clinic recently reported that using an AI to analyze women’s labor patterns was very successful in determining whether a vaginal or cesarean delivery was appropriate.

They examined over 700 factors and over 66,000 deliveries from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s multicenter Consortium on Safe Labor database to produce a risk-prediction model that may “provide an alternative to conventional labor charts and promote individualization of clinical decisions using baseline and labor characteristics of each patient,” they said in a written statement from the clinic.

It is hoped that the AI will reduce the risk of possible complications and the costs associated with maternal mortality. The AI also could be a significant tool for doctors and midwives in rural areas to determine when a patient needs to be moved to a location with a higher level of care.

“We believe the algorithm will work in real time, meaning every input of new data during an expectant woman’s labor automatically recalculates the risk of adverse outcome,” said senior author Abimbola Famuyide, MD, of the Mayo Clinic.

If it all works out, many lives and dollars could be saved, thanks to science.
 

Democracy, meet COVID-19

Everywhere you look, it seems, someone is trying to keep someone else from doing something: Don’t carry a gun. Don’t get an abortion. Don’t drive so fast. Don’t inhale that whipped cream. Don’t get a vaccine. Don’t put that in your mouth.

One of the biggies these days is voting rights. Some people are trying to prevent other people from voting. But why? Well, turns out that turnout can be bad for your health … at least during a worldwide pandemic event.

mohamed mahmoud hassan

The evidence for that claim comes from researchers who examined the Italian national constitutional referendum conducted in September 2020 along with elections for assembly representatives in 7 of the country’s 20 regions and for mayors in about 12% of municipalities. The combination mattered: Voter turnout was higher in the municipalities that voted for both the referendum and local elections (69%), compared with municipalities voting only for the referendum (47%), the investigators reported in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

Also occurring in September of 2020 was, as we mentioned, a worldwide pandemic event. You may have heard about it.

The investigators considered the differences in election turnout between the various municipalities and compared them with new weekly COVID-19 infections at the municipality level. “Our model shows that something as fundamental as casting a vote can come at a cost,” investigator Giuseppe Moscelli, PhD, of the University of Surrey (England) said in a written statement.

What was the cost? Each 1% increase in turnout, they found, amounted to an average 1.1% increase in COVID infections after the elections.

See? More people voting means more COVID, which is bad. Which brings us to today’s lesson in people preventing other people from doing something. Don’t let COVID win. Stay in your house and never come out. And get that smeckledorf out of your mouth. You don’t know where it’s been.

Women giving birth for the first time have significantly higher odds of developing gestational diabetes if they have a high polygenic risk score (PRS) and low physical activity, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Kymberleigh A. Pagel, PhD, with the department of computer science, Indiana University, Bloomington, concluded that physical activity early in pregnancy is associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes and may help women who are at high risk because of genetic predisposition, age, family history of diabetes, and body mass index.

The researchers included 3,533 women in the analysis (average age, 28.6 years) which was a subcohort of a larger study. They found that physical activity’s association with lower gestational diabetes risk “was particularly significant in individuals who were genetically predisposed to diabetes through PRS or family history,” the authors wrote.

Women with high PRS and low level of physical activity had three times the odds of developing gestational diabetes (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-5.3).

Those with high PRS and moderate to high activity levels in early pregnancy (metabolic equivalents of task [METs] of at least 450) had gestational diabetes risk similar to that of the general population, according to the researchers.

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

Maisa Feghali, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who was not part of the study, said in an interview she found the link of physical activity and compensation for high predisposition to gestational diabetes most interesting.

“That’s interesting because a lot of studies that have looked at prevention of gestational diabetes either through limited weight gain or through some form of counseling on physical activity have not really shown any benefit,” she noted. “It might just be it’s not just one size fits all and it may be that physical activity is mostly beneficial in those with a high predisposition.”

Research in this area is particularly important as 7% of pregnancies in the United States each year are affected by gestational diabetes and the risk for developing type 2 diabetes “has doubled in the past decade among patients with GD [gestational diabetes],” the authors wrote.

Researchers looked at risks for gestational diabetes in high-risk subgroups, including women who had a body mass index of more than 25 kg/m² or were at least 35 years old. In that group, women who were either in the in the top 25th percentile for PRS or had low physical activity (METs less than 450) had from 25% to 75% greater risk of developing gestational diabetes.

The findings are consistent with previous research and suggest exercise interventions may be important in improving pregnancy outcomes, the authors wrote.

Christina Han, MD, division director for maternal-fetal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, who was not part of the study, pointed out several limitations of the study, however.

One of the biggest limitations, she said, was that “they excluded two-thirds of the original study. Essentially, they took only Caucasian [White] patients, which is about one-third of the study.” Additionally, the cohort was made up of people who had never had babies.

“Lots of our gestational diabetes patients are not first-time moms, so this makes the generalizability of the study very limited,” Dr. Han said.

She added that none of the sites where the study was conducted were in the South or Northwest, which also adds questions about generalizability.

Dr. Feghali and Dr. Han reported no relevant financial relationships.

Women giving birth for the first time have significantly higher odds of developing gestational diabetes if they have a high polygenic risk score (PRS) and low physical activity, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Kymberleigh A. Pagel, PhD, with the department of computer science, Indiana University, Bloomington, concluded that physical activity early in pregnancy is associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes and may help women who are at high risk because of genetic predisposition, age, family history of diabetes, and body mass index.

The researchers included 3,533 women in the analysis (average age, 28.6 years) which was a subcohort of a larger study. They found that physical activity’s association with lower gestational diabetes risk “was particularly significant in individuals who were genetically predisposed to diabetes through PRS or family history,” the authors wrote.

Women with high PRS and low level of physical activity had three times the odds of developing gestational diabetes (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-5.3).

Those with high PRS and moderate to high activity levels in early pregnancy (metabolic equivalents of task [METs] of at least 450) had gestational diabetes risk similar to that of the general population, according to the researchers.

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

Maisa Feghali, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who was not part of the study, said in an interview she found the link of physical activity and compensation for high predisposition to gestational diabetes most interesting.

“That’s interesting because a lot of studies that have looked at prevention of gestational diabetes either through limited weight gain or through some form of counseling on physical activity have not really shown any benefit,” she noted. “It might just be it’s not just one size fits all and it may be that physical activity is mostly beneficial in those with a high predisposition.”

Research in this area is particularly important as 7% of pregnancies in the United States each year are affected by gestational diabetes and the risk for developing type 2 diabetes “has doubled in the past decade among patients with GD [gestational diabetes],” the authors wrote.

Researchers looked at risks for gestational diabetes in high-risk subgroups, including women who had a body mass index of more than 25 kg/m² or were at least 35 years old. In that group, women who were either in the in the top 25th percentile for PRS or had low physical activity (METs less than 450) had from 25% to 75% greater risk of developing gestational diabetes.

The findings are consistent with previous research and suggest exercise interventions may be important in improving pregnancy outcomes, the authors wrote.

Christina Han, MD, division director for maternal-fetal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, who was not part of the study, pointed out several limitations of the study, however.

One of the biggest limitations, she said, was that “they excluded two-thirds of the original study. Essentially, they took only Caucasian [White] patients, which is about one-third of the study.” Additionally, the cohort was made up of people who had never had babies.

“Lots of our gestational diabetes patients are not first-time moms, so this makes the generalizability of the study very limited,” Dr. Han said.

She added that none of the sites where the study was conducted were in the South or Northwest, which also adds questions about generalizability.

Dr. Feghali and Dr. Han reported no relevant financial relationships.

Women giving birth for the first time have significantly higher odds of developing gestational diabetes if they have a high polygenic risk score (PRS) and low physical activity, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Kymberleigh A. Pagel, PhD, with the department of computer science, Indiana University, Bloomington, concluded that physical activity early in pregnancy is associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes and may help women who are at high risk because of genetic predisposition, age, family history of diabetes, and body mass index.

The researchers included 3,533 women in the analysis (average age, 28.6 years) which was a subcohort of a larger study. They found that physical activity’s association with lower gestational diabetes risk “was particularly significant in individuals who were genetically predisposed to diabetes through PRS or family history,” the authors wrote.

Women with high PRS and low level of physical activity had three times the odds of developing gestational diabetes (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-5.3).

Those with high PRS and moderate to high activity levels in early pregnancy (metabolic equivalents of task [METs] of at least 450) had gestational diabetes risk similar to that of the general population, according to the researchers.

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

Maisa Feghali, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who was not part of the study, said in an interview she found the link of physical activity and compensation for high predisposition to gestational diabetes most interesting.

“That’s interesting because a lot of studies that have looked at prevention of gestational diabetes either through limited weight gain or through some form of counseling on physical activity have not really shown any benefit,” she noted. “It might just be it’s not just one size fits all and it may be that physical activity is mostly beneficial in those with a high predisposition.”

Research in this area is particularly important as 7% of pregnancies in the United States each year are affected by gestational diabetes and the risk for developing type 2 diabetes “has doubled in the past decade among patients with GD [gestational diabetes],” the authors wrote.

Researchers looked at risks for gestational diabetes in high-risk subgroups, including women who had a body mass index of more than 25 kg/m² or were at least 35 years old. In that group, women who were either in the in the top 25th percentile for PRS or had low physical activity (METs less than 450) had from 25% to 75% greater risk of developing gestational diabetes.

The findings are consistent with previous research and suggest exercise interventions may be important in improving pregnancy outcomes, the authors wrote.

Christina Han, MD, division director for maternal-fetal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, who was not part of the study, pointed out several limitations of the study, however.

One of the biggest limitations, she said, was that “they excluded two-thirds of the original study. Essentially, they took only Caucasian [White] patients, which is about one-third of the study.” Additionally, the cohort was made up of people who had never had babies.

“Lots of our gestational diabetes patients are not first-time moms, so this makes the generalizability of the study very limited,” Dr. Han said.

She added that none of the sites where the study was conducted were in the South or Northwest, which also adds questions about generalizability.

Dr. Feghali and Dr. Han reported no relevant financial relationships.

In the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, those symptoms are not related to the statin, a new individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

The Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration meta-analysis examined 19 large randomized double-blind trials that compared statin therapy with placebo and involved almost 124,000 patients.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“Our results show that, in people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, those symptoms are actually due to the statin in only 1 of 15 of those people. For the other 14 of the 15 people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, that muscle pain is not due to the statin,” lead investigator Colin Baigent, MD, said.

After the first year, there was no difference in muscle symptoms between patients taking a statin or those taking placebo.

Dr. Baigent, who is director of the Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), presented the data on Aug. 29 at the European Society of Cardiology 2022 Congress.

It was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet. 

Dr. Baigent explained that statins very rarely cause serious muscle adverse effects with biochemical evidence of cellular damage, such as myopathy (which occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 patients per year) and rhabdomyolysis (which occurs in about 0.2 per 10,000 patients per year).

The effect of statins on other less serious muscle symptoms without biochemical evidence of cellular damage is less clear, but misinformation about the risks have arisen from nonrandomized studies, with social media and press reports suggesting that the risk for muscle symptoms with statins is extremely common, Dr. Baigent said.  

In response to this, the Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration put together a new program of data collection, validation, and analysis to provide reliable information from large double-blind randomized trials that are free from bias and confounding.

“Overall, when we look at all these data, we find there is about a 3% relative increase in the risks of experiencing muscle pain or weakness with a statin versus with placebo,” Dr. Baigent reported.

Muscle pain or weakness was reported by 16,835 of 62,028 patients taking a statin, (27.1%), compared with 16,446 of 61,912 patients taking placebo (26.6%), for a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06).

In absolute terms, the results show a rate of 166 reports of muscle symptoms per 1,000 patient-years in those taking a statin, compared with 155 per 1,000-patient-years in those taking placebo in the first year. This gives a rate ratio of 1.07 and an excess of 11 cases of muscle pain or weakness per 1,000 patients in the first year of statin therapy. 

“The very small excess of muscle symptoms in the statin patients were generally mild, with most patients able to continue treatment,” Dr. Baigent added. 

After the first year, the rate of muscle pain or weakness was exactly the same in the statin and placebo groups, at 50 per 1,000 patient-years.

“Therefore, for the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness on a statin, those symptoms are not due to the statin itself. It is due to something else, which could be ageing, thyroid disease, or exercise,” Dr. Baigent said. “After the first year of taking a statin, there is no excess risk of muscle pain or weakness at all.”

“To summarize, the excess risk of muscle pain or weakness with statin use is tiny, and almost nonexistent after the first year,” he added.

“Muscle pain is very common in the general population, and it was very common in both patients taking a statin and those given placebo in these randomized trials. We can only detect a difference by looking at all the data combined in this enormous study. And we now know for sure that over 90% of cases of muscle symptoms experienced by people taking a statin are not due to the statin.”

The researchers also looked at statin intensity and found that the more intense statins tend to cause slightly more muscle pain. “There was also some evidence, although this was not very clear, that the muscle pain with the more intensive statins may persist for longer than 1 year,” Dr. Baigent said.

But in terms of different moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins, there was no evidence of differences in muscle pain between the individual statin brands, he added.
 

Better patient information needed

Dr. Baigent called for better information in statin package inserts about the real risk for muscle symptoms with these drugs.

“We need to do a better job of communicating the real risk of muscle symptom to patients who are taking statins and to their doctors. At the moment, doctors often stop statins if patients complain of muscle pain, but our data show that in 14 out of 15 times, they would be wrong for doing that. Stopping the statin is nearly always a mistake,” he commented.

“At present, the package inserts include a whole load of rubbish from observational studies, which are completely unreliable,” he added. “This is of no value to patients. They go through this information and find several symptoms they are experiencing, which they attribute to the drugs. We really need to divide up the information into the evidence that we really know for sure and then the more speculative stuff.”

Dr. Baigent also highlighted the large benefits of statins, compared with the small risk for muscle symptoms.

“While statins may cause 11 patients per 1,000 to experience some mild muscle pain in the first year of taking these drugs, and this was reduced to none in subsequent years, statins, when used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, prevent 25 cardiovascular events per 1,000 patients every year they are taken. And for secondary prevention this rises to 50 events prevented per 1,000 patients each year,” he noted.  

The individual participant data meta-analysis involved 23 trials with information on almost 155,000 patients. All trials included at least 1,000 patients and at least 2 years of scheduled treatment. Adverse-event data were collected for all individual participants in 19 large randomized double-blind trials comparing statin therapy with placebo (123,940 patients) and in four randomized double-blind trials comparing more-intensive with less-intensive statin therapy (30,724 patients).

In the four trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy, high-intensity regimens (atorvastatin 40-80 mg daily or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily) resulted in a larger relative increase in the rate of muscle pain or weakness than moderate-intensity regimens, with rate ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.05), respectively.
 

‘Reassuring information’

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Erin Bohula, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said this new analysis had many strengths and used a rigorous approach to look at the issue of muscle symptoms with statins.

She pointed out some challenges, including the fact that the definition of adverse muscle events has changed over time and differed in the various trials, with heterogeneous data capture across trials. “So, this was a Herculean task to harmonize this very complicated dataset.”

Dr. Bohula concluded: “I think this is a very significant undertaking, resulting in a rich dataset that enhances our understanding of muscle symptoms related to statin use. The take-home for me is that muscle symptoms are a common complaint in the general population but are very rarely attributable to statins. This is very reassuring to me, and I hope it is reassuring to patients and can help us encourage them with adherence, given the clear cardiovascular benefits of statins.”

Chair of the ESC Hotline session at which the study was presented, Gabriel Steg, MD, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, asked whether some statin patients who experienced muscle symptoms with the drugs in active run-in periods in the trials may have been excluded from the main trials, so that this information might not have been captured, but Dr. Baigent replied that they also examined those data, which had been accounted for in the analysis.

“That’s really good news,” Dr. Steg commented. “This study is going to be one more tool in our response to statin skeptics and I think, as such, this work is a really a service to public health.”

The meta-analysis was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

In the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, those symptoms are not related to the statin, a new individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

The Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration meta-analysis examined 19 large randomized double-blind trials that compared statin therapy with placebo and involved almost 124,000 patients.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“Our results show that, in people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, those symptoms are actually due to the statin in only 1 of 15 of those people. For the other 14 of the 15 people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, that muscle pain is not due to the statin,” lead investigator Colin Baigent, MD, said.

After the first year, there was no difference in muscle symptoms between patients taking a statin or those taking placebo.

Dr. Baigent, who is director of the Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), presented the data on Aug. 29 at the European Society of Cardiology 2022 Congress.

It was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet. 

Dr. Baigent explained that statins very rarely cause serious muscle adverse effects with biochemical evidence of cellular damage, such as myopathy (which occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 patients per year) and rhabdomyolysis (which occurs in about 0.2 per 10,000 patients per year).

The effect of statins on other less serious muscle symptoms without biochemical evidence of cellular damage is less clear, but misinformation about the risks have arisen from nonrandomized studies, with social media and press reports suggesting that the risk for muscle symptoms with statins is extremely common, Dr. Baigent said.  

In response to this, the Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration put together a new program of data collection, validation, and analysis to provide reliable information from large double-blind randomized trials that are free from bias and confounding.

“Overall, when we look at all these data, we find there is about a 3% relative increase in the risks of experiencing muscle pain or weakness with a statin versus with placebo,” Dr. Baigent reported.

Muscle pain or weakness was reported by 16,835 of 62,028 patients taking a statin, (27.1%), compared with 16,446 of 61,912 patients taking placebo (26.6%), for a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06).

In absolute terms, the results show a rate of 166 reports of muscle symptoms per 1,000 patient-years in those taking a statin, compared with 155 per 1,000-patient-years in those taking placebo in the first year. This gives a rate ratio of 1.07 and an excess of 11 cases of muscle pain or weakness per 1,000 patients in the first year of statin therapy. 

“The very small excess of muscle symptoms in the statin patients were generally mild, with most patients able to continue treatment,” Dr. Baigent added. 

After the first year, the rate of muscle pain or weakness was exactly the same in the statin and placebo groups, at 50 per 1,000 patient-years.

“Therefore, for the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness on a statin, those symptoms are not due to the statin itself. It is due to something else, which could be ageing, thyroid disease, or exercise,” Dr. Baigent said. “After the first year of taking a statin, there is no excess risk of muscle pain or weakness at all.”

“To summarize, the excess risk of muscle pain or weakness with statin use is tiny, and almost nonexistent after the first year,” he added.

“Muscle pain is very common in the general population, and it was very common in both patients taking a statin and those given placebo in these randomized trials. We can only detect a difference by looking at all the data combined in this enormous study. And we now know for sure that over 90% of cases of muscle symptoms experienced by people taking a statin are not due to the statin.”

The researchers also looked at statin intensity and found that the more intense statins tend to cause slightly more muscle pain. “There was also some evidence, although this was not very clear, that the muscle pain with the more intensive statins may persist for longer than 1 year,” Dr. Baigent said.

But in terms of different moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins, there was no evidence of differences in muscle pain between the individual statin brands, he added.
 

Better patient information needed

Dr. Baigent called for better information in statin package inserts about the real risk for muscle symptoms with these drugs.

“We need to do a better job of communicating the real risk of muscle symptom to patients who are taking statins and to their doctors. At the moment, doctors often stop statins if patients complain of muscle pain, but our data show that in 14 out of 15 times, they would be wrong for doing that. Stopping the statin is nearly always a mistake,” he commented.

“At present, the package inserts include a whole load of rubbish from observational studies, which are completely unreliable,” he added. “This is of no value to patients. They go through this information and find several symptoms they are experiencing, which they attribute to the drugs. We really need to divide up the information into the evidence that we really know for sure and then the more speculative stuff.”

Dr. Baigent also highlighted the large benefits of statins, compared with the small risk for muscle symptoms.

“While statins may cause 11 patients per 1,000 to experience some mild muscle pain in the first year of taking these drugs, and this was reduced to none in subsequent years, statins, when used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, prevent 25 cardiovascular events per 1,000 patients every year they are taken. And for secondary prevention this rises to 50 events prevented per 1,000 patients each year,” he noted.  

The individual participant data meta-analysis involved 23 trials with information on almost 155,000 patients. All trials included at least 1,000 patients and at least 2 years of scheduled treatment. Adverse-event data were collected for all individual participants in 19 large randomized double-blind trials comparing statin therapy with placebo (123,940 patients) and in four randomized double-blind trials comparing more-intensive with less-intensive statin therapy (30,724 patients).

In the four trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy, high-intensity regimens (atorvastatin 40-80 mg daily or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily) resulted in a larger relative increase in the rate of muscle pain or weakness than moderate-intensity regimens, with rate ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.05), respectively.
 

‘Reassuring information’

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Erin Bohula, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said this new analysis had many strengths and used a rigorous approach to look at the issue of muscle symptoms with statins.

She pointed out some challenges, including the fact that the definition of adverse muscle events has changed over time and differed in the various trials, with heterogeneous data capture across trials. “So, this was a Herculean task to harmonize this very complicated dataset.”

Dr. Bohula concluded: “I think this is a very significant undertaking, resulting in a rich dataset that enhances our understanding of muscle symptoms related to statin use. The take-home for me is that muscle symptoms are a common complaint in the general population but are very rarely attributable to statins. This is very reassuring to me, and I hope it is reassuring to patients and can help us encourage them with adherence, given the clear cardiovascular benefits of statins.”

Chair of the ESC Hotline session at which the study was presented, Gabriel Steg, MD, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, asked whether some statin patients who experienced muscle symptoms with the drugs in active run-in periods in the trials may have been excluded from the main trials, so that this information might not have been captured, but Dr. Baigent replied that they also examined those data, which had been accounted for in the analysis.

“That’s really good news,” Dr. Steg commented. “This study is going to be one more tool in our response to statin skeptics and I think, as such, this work is a really a service to public health.”

The meta-analysis was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

In the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness while taking a statin, those symptoms are not related to the statin, a new individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

The Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration meta-analysis examined 19 large randomized double-blind trials that compared statin therapy with placebo and involved almost 124,000 patients.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“Our results show that, in people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, those symptoms are actually due to the statin in only 1 of 15 of those people. For the other 14 of the 15 people who experience muscle symptoms in the first year of taking a statin, that muscle pain is not due to the statin,” lead investigator Colin Baigent, MD, said.

After the first year, there was no difference in muscle symptoms between patients taking a statin or those taking placebo.

Dr. Baigent, who is director of the Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), presented the data on Aug. 29 at the European Society of Cardiology 2022 Congress.

It was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet. 

Dr. Baigent explained that statins very rarely cause serious muscle adverse effects with biochemical evidence of cellular damage, such as myopathy (which occurs in less than 1 in 10,000 patients per year) and rhabdomyolysis (which occurs in about 0.2 per 10,000 patients per year).

The effect of statins on other less serious muscle symptoms without biochemical evidence of cellular damage is less clear, but misinformation about the risks have arisen from nonrandomized studies, with social media and press reports suggesting that the risk for muscle symptoms with statins is extremely common, Dr. Baigent said.  

In response to this, the Cholesterol Trialists Collaboration put together a new program of data collection, validation, and analysis to provide reliable information from large double-blind randomized trials that are free from bias and confounding.

“Overall, when we look at all these data, we find there is about a 3% relative increase in the risks of experiencing muscle pain or weakness with a statin versus with placebo,” Dr. Baigent reported.

Muscle pain or weakness was reported by 16,835 of 62,028 patients taking a statin, (27.1%), compared with 16,446 of 61,912 patients taking placebo (26.6%), for a rate ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.06).

In absolute terms, the results show a rate of 166 reports of muscle symptoms per 1,000 patient-years in those taking a statin, compared with 155 per 1,000-patient-years in those taking placebo in the first year. This gives a rate ratio of 1.07 and an excess of 11 cases of muscle pain or weakness per 1,000 patients in the first year of statin therapy. 

“The very small excess of muscle symptoms in the statin patients were generally mild, with most patients able to continue treatment,” Dr. Baigent added. 

After the first year, the rate of muscle pain or weakness was exactly the same in the statin and placebo groups, at 50 per 1,000 patient-years.

“Therefore, for the vast majority of people who experience muscle pain or weakness on a statin, those symptoms are not due to the statin itself. It is due to something else, which could be ageing, thyroid disease, or exercise,” Dr. Baigent said. “After the first year of taking a statin, there is no excess risk of muscle pain or weakness at all.”

“To summarize, the excess risk of muscle pain or weakness with statin use is tiny, and almost nonexistent after the first year,” he added.

“Muscle pain is very common in the general population, and it was very common in both patients taking a statin and those given placebo in these randomized trials. We can only detect a difference by looking at all the data combined in this enormous study. And we now know for sure that over 90% of cases of muscle symptoms experienced by people taking a statin are not due to the statin.”

The researchers also looked at statin intensity and found that the more intense statins tend to cause slightly more muscle pain. “There was also some evidence, although this was not very clear, that the muscle pain with the more intensive statins may persist for longer than 1 year,” Dr. Baigent said.

But in terms of different moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins, there was no evidence of differences in muscle pain between the individual statin brands, he added.
 

Better patient information needed

Dr. Baigent called for better information in statin package inserts about the real risk for muscle symptoms with these drugs.

“We need to do a better job of communicating the real risk of muscle symptom to patients who are taking statins and to their doctors. At the moment, doctors often stop statins if patients complain of muscle pain, but our data show that in 14 out of 15 times, they would be wrong for doing that. Stopping the statin is nearly always a mistake,” he commented.

“At present, the package inserts include a whole load of rubbish from observational studies, which are completely unreliable,” he added. “This is of no value to patients. They go through this information and find several symptoms they are experiencing, which they attribute to the drugs. We really need to divide up the information into the evidence that we really know for sure and then the more speculative stuff.”

Dr. Baigent also highlighted the large benefits of statins, compared with the small risk for muscle symptoms.

“While statins may cause 11 patients per 1,000 to experience some mild muscle pain in the first year of taking these drugs, and this was reduced to none in subsequent years, statins, when used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, prevent 25 cardiovascular events per 1,000 patients every year they are taken. And for secondary prevention this rises to 50 events prevented per 1,000 patients each year,” he noted.  

The individual participant data meta-analysis involved 23 trials with information on almost 155,000 patients. All trials included at least 1,000 patients and at least 2 years of scheduled treatment. Adverse-event data were collected for all individual participants in 19 large randomized double-blind trials comparing statin therapy with placebo (123,940 patients) and in four randomized double-blind trials comparing more-intensive with less-intensive statin therapy (30,724 patients).

In the four trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy, high-intensity regimens (atorvastatin 40-80 mg daily or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg daily) resulted in a larger relative increase in the rate of muscle pain or weakness than moderate-intensity regimens, with rate ratios of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.05), respectively.
 

‘Reassuring information’

Discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Erin Bohula, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said this new analysis had many strengths and used a rigorous approach to look at the issue of muscle symptoms with statins.

She pointed out some challenges, including the fact that the definition of adverse muscle events has changed over time and differed in the various trials, with heterogeneous data capture across trials. “So, this was a Herculean task to harmonize this very complicated dataset.”

Dr. Bohula concluded: “I think this is a very significant undertaking, resulting in a rich dataset that enhances our understanding of muscle symptoms related to statin use. The take-home for me is that muscle symptoms are a common complaint in the general population but are very rarely attributable to statins. This is very reassuring to me, and I hope it is reassuring to patients and can help us encourage them with adherence, given the clear cardiovascular benefits of statins.”

Chair of the ESC Hotline session at which the study was presented, Gabriel Steg, MD, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, asked whether some statin patients who experienced muscle symptoms with the drugs in active run-in periods in the trials may have been excluded from the main trials, so that this information might not have been captured, but Dr. Baigent replied that they also examined those data, which had been accounted for in the analysis.

“That’s really good news,” Dr. Steg commented. “This study is going to be one more tool in our response to statin skeptics and I think, as such, this work is a really a service to public health.”

The meta-analysis was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

A new online tool can quickly and accurately identify individuals who may benefit from genetic testing because they likely carry pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in a diverse spectrum of cancer susceptibility genes.

The PREMMplus online tool was developed and validated by researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston using three cohorts involving more than 30,000 individuals who had undergone multigene hereditary cancer risk testing.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Our findings show that PREMMplus has the potential to change the model by which patients and family members are referred for genetic testing and counseling,” senior author Sapna Syngal, MD, MPH, with Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an institution news release.

Traditionally, when there is concern about a family cancer history, the individual is referred to a genetics clinic, where a counselor takes a complete family history.

“At a time when there’s a shortage of genetic counselors, PREMMplus can help streamline risk assessment and ensure that their time can be focused on where they’re most needed – helping people understand the results of genetic testing and the options available when a cancer-susceptibility gene is found,” Dr. Syngal says.
 

Online tool

The tool uses clinical data (age, sex, ethnicity, and personal/family history of 18 cancers) to determine an individual’s likelihood of harboring a PGV in 19 cancer susceptibility genes.

A PREMMplus score of 2.5% or greater had a 89%-94% sensitivity and > 97% negative predictive value (NPV) for identifying individuals with PGVs in 11 well-defined “category A” high-penetrance cancer risk genes: APC, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, biallelic MUTYH, PMS2, and TP53.

These PGVs “represent diverse types of inherited cancer risk for which there are established risk-reduction guidelines,” the study team says. Cancers associated with these PGVs include breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, as well as those that make up Lynch syndrome.

The ability of PREMMplus to identify individuals with PGVs in “moderate-penetrance” cancer risk genes (such as CHEK2 and ATM) was somewhat reduced but was still “quite strong” (84%-90% sensitivity and > 93% NPV), the study team reports.

In an interview, Dr. Syngal said her ultimate vision of this online tool is that it will be adapted into the electronic medical record (EMR).

“Through the EMR, it might somehow get pushed out to people before an oncology or primary care appointment or before a mammography or colonoscopy. Then by the time they come in, the doctor or nurse practitioner has the information and can refer them for genetic testing if appropriate,” Dr. Syngal explained.

The tool is not currently available for routine clinical use. The goal is to make it available online in a couple of months.

Dr. Syngal said two versions will be available. One will be a user-friendly version that can be filled out directly by patients and that will tell whether someone passes the threshold of needing genetic testing. The patient would then take that information to their primary care doctor.

With the second version, the doctor and patient would fill out the information together during an office visit.

PREMMplus would be free for the individual patient or provider.

“What we hope is that hospital systems will use it and that insurance companies will also use it as a way to say who needs testing and who to approve for testing,” Dr. Syngal told this news organization.

“For a hospital system or a genetic testing company, for example, that wants to integrate it into their direct-to-consumer platform, they would have to take out a license from Dana-Farber, and cost would be negotiated with each entity based on how they’re going to use it,” Dr. Syngal said.

Funding for the research was provided by the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

A new online tool can quickly and accurately identify individuals who may benefit from genetic testing because they likely carry pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in a diverse spectrum of cancer susceptibility genes.

The PREMMplus online tool was developed and validated by researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston using three cohorts involving more than 30,000 individuals who had undergone multigene hereditary cancer risk testing.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Our findings show that PREMMplus has the potential to change the model by which patients and family members are referred for genetic testing and counseling,” senior author Sapna Syngal, MD, MPH, with Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an institution news release.

Traditionally, when there is concern about a family cancer history, the individual is referred to a genetics clinic, where a counselor takes a complete family history.

“At a time when there’s a shortage of genetic counselors, PREMMplus can help streamline risk assessment and ensure that their time can be focused on where they’re most needed – helping people understand the results of genetic testing and the options available when a cancer-susceptibility gene is found,” Dr. Syngal says.
 

Online tool

The tool uses clinical data (age, sex, ethnicity, and personal/family history of 18 cancers) to determine an individual’s likelihood of harboring a PGV in 19 cancer susceptibility genes.

A PREMMplus score of 2.5% or greater had a 89%-94% sensitivity and > 97% negative predictive value (NPV) for identifying individuals with PGVs in 11 well-defined “category A” high-penetrance cancer risk genes: APC, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, biallelic MUTYH, PMS2, and TP53.

These PGVs “represent diverse types of inherited cancer risk for which there are established risk-reduction guidelines,” the study team says. Cancers associated with these PGVs include breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, as well as those that make up Lynch syndrome.

The ability of PREMMplus to identify individuals with PGVs in “moderate-penetrance” cancer risk genes (such as CHEK2 and ATM) was somewhat reduced but was still “quite strong” (84%-90% sensitivity and > 93% NPV), the study team reports.

In an interview, Dr. Syngal said her ultimate vision of this online tool is that it will be adapted into the electronic medical record (EMR).

“Through the EMR, it might somehow get pushed out to people before an oncology or primary care appointment or before a mammography or colonoscopy. Then by the time they come in, the doctor or nurse practitioner has the information and can refer them for genetic testing if appropriate,” Dr. Syngal explained.

The tool is not currently available for routine clinical use. The goal is to make it available online in a couple of months.

Dr. Syngal said two versions will be available. One will be a user-friendly version that can be filled out directly by patients and that will tell whether someone passes the threshold of needing genetic testing. The patient would then take that information to their primary care doctor.

With the second version, the doctor and patient would fill out the information together during an office visit.

PREMMplus would be free for the individual patient or provider.

“What we hope is that hospital systems will use it and that insurance companies will also use it as a way to say who needs testing and who to approve for testing,” Dr. Syngal told this news organization.

“For a hospital system or a genetic testing company, for example, that wants to integrate it into their direct-to-consumer platform, they would have to take out a license from Dana-Farber, and cost would be negotiated with each entity based on how they’re going to use it,” Dr. Syngal said.

Funding for the research was provided by the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

A new online tool can quickly and accurately identify individuals who may benefit from genetic testing because they likely carry pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in a diverse spectrum of cancer susceptibility genes.

The PREMMplus online tool was developed and validated by researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston using three cohorts involving more than 30,000 individuals who had undergone multigene hereditary cancer risk testing.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Our findings show that PREMMplus has the potential to change the model by which patients and family members are referred for genetic testing and counseling,” senior author Sapna Syngal, MD, MPH, with Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an institution news release.

Traditionally, when there is concern about a family cancer history, the individual is referred to a genetics clinic, where a counselor takes a complete family history.

“At a time when there’s a shortage of genetic counselors, PREMMplus can help streamline risk assessment and ensure that their time can be focused on where they’re most needed – helping people understand the results of genetic testing and the options available when a cancer-susceptibility gene is found,” Dr. Syngal says.
 

Online tool

The tool uses clinical data (age, sex, ethnicity, and personal/family history of 18 cancers) to determine an individual’s likelihood of harboring a PGV in 19 cancer susceptibility genes.

A PREMMplus score of 2.5% or greater had a 89%-94% sensitivity and > 97% negative predictive value (NPV) for identifying individuals with PGVs in 11 well-defined “category A” high-penetrance cancer risk genes: APC, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, biallelic MUTYH, PMS2, and TP53.

These PGVs “represent diverse types of inherited cancer risk for which there are established risk-reduction guidelines,” the study team says. Cancers associated with these PGVs include breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, as well as those that make up Lynch syndrome.

The ability of PREMMplus to identify individuals with PGVs in “moderate-penetrance” cancer risk genes (such as CHEK2 and ATM) was somewhat reduced but was still “quite strong” (84%-90% sensitivity and > 93% NPV), the study team reports.

In an interview, Dr. Syngal said her ultimate vision of this online tool is that it will be adapted into the electronic medical record (EMR).

“Through the EMR, it might somehow get pushed out to people before an oncology or primary care appointment or before a mammography or colonoscopy. Then by the time they come in, the doctor or nurse practitioner has the information and can refer them for genetic testing if appropriate,” Dr. Syngal explained.

The tool is not currently available for routine clinical use. The goal is to make it available online in a couple of months.

Dr. Syngal said two versions will be available. One will be a user-friendly version that can be filled out directly by patients and that will tell whether someone passes the threshold of needing genetic testing. The patient would then take that information to their primary care doctor.

With the second version, the doctor and patient would fill out the information together during an office visit.

PREMMplus would be free for the individual patient or provider.

“What we hope is that hospital systems will use it and that insurance companies will also use it as a way to say who needs testing and who to approve for testing,” Dr. Syngal told this news organization.

“For a hospital system or a genetic testing company, for example, that wants to integrate it into their direct-to-consumer platform, they would have to take out a license from Dana-Farber, and cost would be negotiated with each entity based on how they’re going to use it,” Dr. Syngal said.

Funding for the research was provided by the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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