MDedge Pediatrics

Teenagers who use cannabis have a dramatic increased risk for a psychotic disorder, compared with their counterparts who don’t use the drug, new research showed.

Investigators at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), in Canada, linked recent population-based survey data from more than 11,000 youngsters to health service use records, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits.

“We found a very strong association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder in adolescence [although] surprisingly, we didn’t find evidence of association in young adulthood,” lead author André J. McDonald, PhD, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a news release.

“These findings are consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that teens are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis,” said Dr. McDonald, who conducted the research.

The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.


 

Increased Potency

“Epidemiologic research suggests that cannabis use may be a significant risk factor for psychotic disorders,” the authors wrote. However, methodological limitations of previous studies make it difficult to estimate the strength of association, with the current evidence base relying largely on cannabis use during the twentieth century, when the drug was “significantly less potent.” It’s plausible that the strength of association has increased due to increased cannabis potency.

The researchers believe youth cannabis use and psychotic disorders is “a critical public health issue,” especially as more jurisdictions liberalize cannabis use and the perception of harm declines among youth.

To estimate the association between cannabis use during youth and the risk for a psychotic disorder diagnosis, using recent population-based data, they used data from the 2009-2012 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) linked to administrative health data at ICES to study noninstitutionalized Ontario residents, aged 12-24 years, who had completed the CCHS during that period.

They excluded respondents who used health services for psychotic disorders during the 6 years prior to their CCHS interview date.

Respondents (n = 11,363; 51% men; mean age [SD], 18.3 [15.2-21.3] years) were followed for 6-9 years, with days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder as the primary outcome.

The researchers estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years) and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore alternative model conditions, including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits, to increase specificity.

Compared with no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with an 11-fold increased risk for psychotic disorders during adolescence, although not during young adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.2; 95% CI, 4.6-27.3 and aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6, respectively).
 

Perception of Harm Declining

When the researchers restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association “increased markedly” during adolescence, with a 26-fold higher association in cannabis users than in nonusers (aHR, 26.7; 95% CI, 7.7-92.8). However, there was no meaningful change during young adulthood (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4).

“Many have hypothesized that adolescence is a more sensitive risk period than adulthood for the effect of cannabis use on psychotic disorder development, yet prior to this study, little epidemiologic evidence existed to support this view,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggest that cannabis use is “more strongly associated with more severe psychotic outcomes, as the strength of association during adolescence increased markedly when we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits (the most severe types of health service use),” the investigators noted.

The authors noted several limitations. For instance, it’s unclear to what extent unmeasured confounders including genetic predisposition, family history of psychotic disorders, and trauma might have biased the results. In addition, they could not assess the potential confounding impact of genetic predisposition to psychotic disorders. The possibility of reverse causality also cannot be ruled out. It’s possible, they noted, that individuals with “psychotic dispositions” may self-medicate or show greater disposition to cannabis use.

Moreover, the dataset neither captured important factors regarding the cannabis itself, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency, mode of use, product type, or cannabis dependence, nor captured institutionalized and homeless youth.

Nevertheless, they pointed to the findings as supporting a “precautionary principle” — as more jurisdictions move to liberalize cannabis use and perception of harm declines among youth, the findings suggest that evidence-based cannabis prevention strategies for adolescents are warranted.

This study was supported by CAMH, the University of Toronto, and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Teenagers who use cannabis have a dramatic increased risk for a psychotic disorder, compared with their counterparts who don’t use the drug, new research showed.

Investigators at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), in Canada, linked recent population-based survey data from more than 11,000 youngsters to health service use records, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits.

“We found a very strong association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder in adolescence [although] surprisingly, we didn’t find evidence of association in young adulthood,” lead author André J. McDonald, PhD, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a news release.

“These findings are consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that teens are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis,” said Dr. McDonald, who conducted the research.

The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.


 

Increased Potency

“Epidemiologic research suggests that cannabis use may be a significant risk factor for psychotic disorders,” the authors wrote. However, methodological limitations of previous studies make it difficult to estimate the strength of association, with the current evidence base relying largely on cannabis use during the twentieth century, when the drug was “significantly less potent.” It’s plausible that the strength of association has increased due to increased cannabis potency.

The researchers believe youth cannabis use and psychotic disorders is “a critical public health issue,” especially as more jurisdictions liberalize cannabis use and the perception of harm declines among youth.

To estimate the association between cannabis use during youth and the risk for a psychotic disorder diagnosis, using recent population-based data, they used data from the 2009-2012 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) linked to administrative health data at ICES to study noninstitutionalized Ontario residents, aged 12-24 years, who had completed the CCHS during that period.

They excluded respondents who used health services for psychotic disorders during the 6 years prior to their CCHS interview date.

Respondents (n = 11,363; 51% men; mean age [SD], 18.3 [15.2-21.3] years) were followed for 6-9 years, with days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder as the primary outcome.

The researchers estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years) and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore alternative model conditions, including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits, to increase specificity.

Compared with no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with an 11-fold increased risk for psychotic disorders during adolescence, although not during young adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.2; 95% CI, 4.6-27.3 and aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6, respectively).
 

Perception of Harm Declining

When the researchers restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association “increased markedly” during adolescence, with a 26-fold higher association in cannabis users than in nonusers (aHR, 26.7; 95% CI, 7.7-92.8). However, there was no meaningful change during young adulthood (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4).

“Many have hypothesized that adolescence is a more sensitive risk period than adulthood for the effect of cannabis use on psychotic disorder development, yet prior to this study, little epidemiologic evidence existed to support this view,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggest that cannabis use is “more strongly associated with more severe psychotic outcomes, as the strength of association during adolescence increased markedly when we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits (the most severe types of health service use),” the investigators noted.

The authors noted several limitations. For instance, it’s unclear to what extent unmeasured confounders including genetic predisposition, family history of psychotic disorders, and trauma might have biased the results. In addition, they could not assess the potential confounding impact of genetic predisposition to psychotic disorders. The possibility of reverse causality also cannot be ruled out. It’s possible, they noted, that individuals with “psychotic dispositions” may self-medicate or show greater disposition to cannabis use.

Moreover, the dataset neither captured important factors regarding the cannabis itself, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency, mode of use, product type, or cannabis dependence, nor captured institutionalized and homeless youth.

Nevertheless, they pointed to the findings as supporting a “precautionary principle” — as more jurisdictions move to liberalize cannabis use and perception of harm declines among youth, the findings suggest that evidence-based cannabis prevention strategies for adolescents are warranted.

This study was supported by CAMH, the University of Toronto, and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Teenagers who use cannabis have a dramatic increased risk for a psychotic disorder, compared with their counterparts who don’t use the drug, new research showed.

Investigators at the University of Toronto, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), in Canada, linked recent population-based survey data from more than 11,000 youngsters to health service use records, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits.

“We found a very strong association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder in adolescence [although] surprisingly, we didn’t find evidence of association in young adulthood,” lead author André J. McDonald, PhD, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a news release.

“These findings are consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that teens are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis,” said Dr. McDonald, who conducted the research.

The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.


 

Increased Potency

“Epidemiologic research suggests that cannabis use may be a significant risk factor for psychotic disorders,” the authors wrote. However, methodological limitations of previous studies make it difficult to estimate the strength of association, with the current evidence base relying largely on cannabis use during the twentieth century, when the drug was “significantly less potent.” It’s plausible that the strength of association has increased due to increased cannabis potency.

The researchers believe youth cannabis use and psychotic disorders is “a critical public health issue,” especially as more jurisdictions liberalize cannabis use and the perception of harm declines among youth.

To estimate the association between cannabis use during youth and the risk for a psychotic disorder diagnosis, using recent population-based data, they used data from the 2009-2012 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) linked to administrative health data at ICES to study noninstitutionalized Ontario residents, aged 12-24 years, who had completed the CCHS during that period.

They excluded respondents who used health services for psychotic disorders during the 6 years prior to their CCHS interview date.

Respondents (n = 11,363; 51% men; mean age [SD], 18.3 [15.2-21.3] years) were followed for 6-9 years, with days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder as the primary outcome.

The researchers estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years) and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore alternative model conditions, including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits, to increase specificity.

Compared with no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with an 11-fold increased risk for psychotic disorders during adolescence, although not during young adulthood (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 11.2; 95% CI, 4.6-27.3 and aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6, respectively).
 

Perception of Harm Declining

When the researchers restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association “increased markedly” during adolescence, with a 26-fold higher association in cannabis users than in nonusers (aHR, 26.7; 95% CI, 7.7-92.8). However, there was no meaningful change during young adulthood (aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4).

“Many have hypothesized that adolescence is a more sensitive risk period than adulthood for the effect of cannabis use on psychotic disorder development, yet prior to this study, little epidemiologic evidence existed to support this view,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggest that cannabis use is “more strongly associated with more severe psychotic outcomes, as the strength of association during adolescence increased markedly when we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits (the most severe types of health service use),” the investigators noted.

The authors noted several limitations. For instance, it’s unclear to what extent unmeasured confounders including genetic predisposition, family history of psychotic disorders, and trauma might have biased the results. In addition, they could not assess the potential confounding impact of genetic predisposition to psychotic disorders. The possibility of reverse causality also cannot be ruled out. It’s possible, they noted, that individuals with “psychotic dispositions” may self-medicate or show greater disposition to cannabis use.

Moreover, the dataset neither captured important factors regarding the cannabis itself, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency, mode of use, product type, or cannabis dependence, nor captured institutionalized and homeless youth.

Nevertheless, they pointed to the findings as supporting a “precautionary principle” — as more jurisdictions move to liberalize cannabis use and perception of harm declines among youth, the findings suggest that evidence-based cannabis prevention strategies for adolescents are warranted.

This study was supported by CAMH, the University of Toronto, and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Onyda XR (clonidine hydrochloride) for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), drug manufacturer Tris Pharma announced in a statement.

The drug is the first approved liquid nonstimulant ADHD medication. The once-daily extended-release oral suspension, with nighttime dosing, can be used alone or as an adjunctive therapy to FDA-approved stimulant medications in pediatric patients 6 years of age or older.

“People with ADHD require a range of therapeutic options that are designed for their individual needs, because not every medication or type of therapy works for every patient,” Ann Childress, MD, a psychiatrist and president of the Las Vegas–based Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, said in the release. 

“The approval of Onyda XR, the only liquid non-stimulant ADHD medication, with nighttime dosing that shifts the release profile, is a convenient option for patients needing better ADHD control,” she added.

The approval was based on “adequate and well-controlled studies” of the company’s extended-release tablets.

Onyda XR is contraindicated in patients with a history of a hypersensitivity reaction to clonidine. 

The medication can cause dose-related decreases in blood pressure and heart rate. Vital signs should be monitored frequently in at-risk patients. In studies with the extended-release tablets, somnolence and sedation were commonly reported adverse reactions. The sympatholytic action of clonidine may worsen sinus node dysfunction and atrioventricular block, especially in patients taking other sympatholytic drugs, the company noted.

Onyda XR should be available in pharmacies in the second half of 2024.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Onyda XR (clonidine hydrochloride) for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), drug manufacturer Tris Pharma announced in a statement.

The drug is the first approved liquid nonstimulant ADHD medication. The once-daily extended-release oral suspension, with nighttime dosing, can be used alone or as an adjunctive therapy to FDA-approved stimulant medications in pediatric patients 6 years of age or older.

“People with ADHD require a range of therapeutic options that are designed for their individual needs, because not every medication or type of therapy works for every patient,” Ann Childress, MD, a psychiatrist and president of the Las Vegas–based Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, said in the release. 

“The approval of Onyda XR, the only liquid non-stimulant ADHD medication, with nighttime dosing that shifts the release profile, is a convenient option for patients needing better ADHD control,” she added.

The approval was based on “adequate and well-controlled studies” of the company’s extended-release tablets.

Onyda XR is contraindicated in patients with a history of a hypersensitivity reaction to clonidine. 

The medication can cause dose-related decreases in blood pressure and heart rate. Vital signs should be monitored frequently in at-risk patients. In studies with the extended-release tablets, somnolence and sedation were commonly reported adverse reactions. The sympatholytic action of clonidine may worsen sinus node dysfunction and atrioventricular block, especially in patients taking other sympatholytic drugs, the company noted.

Onyda XR should be available in pharmacies in the second half of 2024.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Onyda XR (clonidine hydrochloride) for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), drug manufacturer Tris Pharma announced in a statement.

The drug is the first approved liquid nonstimulant ADHD medication. The once-daily extended-release oral suspension, with nighttime dosing, can be used alone or as an adjunctive therapy to FDA-approved stimulant medications in pediatric patients 6 years of age or older.

“People with ADHD require a range of therapeutic options that are designed for their individual needs, because not every medication or type of therapy works for every patient,” Ann Childress, MD, a psychiatrist and president of the Las Vegas–based Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, said in the release. 

“The approval of Onyda XR, the only liquid non-stimulant ADHD medication, with nighttime dosing that shifts the release profile, is a convenient option for patients needing better ADHD control,” she added.

The approval was based on “adequate and well-controlled studies” of the company’s extended-release tablets.

Onyda XR is contraindicated in patients with a history of a hypersensitivity reaction to clonidine. 

The medication can cause dose-related decreases in blood pressure and heart rate. Vital signs should be monitored frequently in at-risk patients. In studies with the extended-release tablets, somnolence and sedation were commonly reported adverse reactions. The sympatholytic action of clonidine may worsen sinus node dysfunction and atrioventricular block, especially in patients taking other sympatholytic drugs, the company noted.

Onyda XR should be available in pharmacies in the second half of 2024.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should incorporate at least one of three validated instruments to measure signs of atopic dermatitis (AD) in their clinical practice, the authors of a new consensus statement recommended.

These include the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGAAD), and the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) multiplied by or measured concurrently with a body surface area (BSA) assessment.

The recommendations are part of a consensus statement based on an updated systematic review conducted by the Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema Clinical Practice (HOME-CP) initiative, whose goal is to identify validated, feasible outcome instruments designed to measure AD in the clinical setting. In the statement, which was published in JAMA Dermatology on May 22, 2024, corresponding author Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors described HOME-CP as “a ‘pick-and-choose’ list of valid and feasible OMIs [outcome measure instruments] that can be incorporated into the practice setting depending on the particular need of that clinic or health system.”

For the effort, the authors implemented a mixed methods design and incorporated systematic reviews and qualitative consensus methods modeled after the HOME core outcome set initiative, which developed a set of consensus-based core outcome sets for clinical trials and clinical practice. In October of 2022, a daylong in-person consensus exercise was held in Montreal, Canada, where attendees met to reach consensus on recommended instruments to measure AD clinical signs in clinical practice, based on an updated systematic review evaluating the validity of clinical signs instruments.

The review included 22 studies describing 16 instruments that assessed AD clinical signs and an additional 12 variants of instruments. The meeting was attended by 34 individuals from 13 countries, including patient and patient advocate research partners, health care professionals, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives. Consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement.

Following their daylong consensus exercise, the stakeholders reached consensus on recommendations to use the EASI, the vIGAAD, and an IGA multiplied or measured alongside a BSA measurement to measure the domain of clinical signs of AD in the clinical practice setting. “The use of multiple IGAs, most with insufficient validation, and the diverse methods used to assess BSA prevented participants from making specific recommendations for the exact IGA/BSA instrument,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that clinicians include at least one of the recommended instruments in their clinical practices and in documentation.” 

They explained that the ideal method of measuring BSA was difficult to assess “because multiple techniques exist for its measurement, including regional percentages, the Rule of Nines, or the handprint method. Most studies did not report which method was performed, and to our knowledge, no studies have been performed in patients with AD that have formally compared them.”

During the consensus exercise, the authors noted, several clinicians “expressed concern whether the EASI was feasible for universal use in clinical practice given its complexity, long completion time, and documentation/calculation requirements.” But clinicians who commonly perform the EASI in clinical practice said that the time it takes to complete this measure “has dropped substantially and now is not a considerable burden,” they wrote, adding that, “studies have shown that with trained investigators, EASI completion times can be as low as nearly 2 minutes.”

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of their recommendations, including the lack of input from primary care clinicians. “It is unknown whether ClinROMs [clinician-reported outcome measures] for AD clinical signs are used in the primary care setting, especially given the large amount of conditions that are managed simultaneously and the ever-increasing number of primary care documentation requirements,” they wrote.

Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the consensus statement, said that with the advent of new, improved, and more expensive medications for AD, “it is ever more important that [the clinical] assessment is reliable and reproducible.”

Insurers “are understandably less willing to rubber-stamp approval of more expensive medications without a reliable standard by which to justify such decisions,” he added. “This is even more important in a disease state like atopic dermatitis that lacks a reliable biomarker. Therefore, one or several practical, reliable, validated severity metrics will help standardize and improve AD care.”

Dr. Sidbury, who cochaired the 2023 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care for the management of AD in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies, added that the instruments evaluated in the review “can be challenging for anyone,” not just primary care providers. “The EASI isn’t that easy, and while there is a learning curve and it ultimately does, like anything, become more efficient in the gathering, it is unclear if non-AD researchers will be willing to invest the time” to routinely use it, he said.

Dr. Simpson and several coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an investigator for Regeneron, Galderma, UCB, Castle, and Pfizer; is a consultant for LEO, Lilly, Arcutis, Dermavant, and Pierre Fabre; and a speaker for Beiersdorf.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Clinicians should incorporate at least one of three validated instruments to measure signs of atopic dermatitis (AD) in their clinical practice, the authors of a new consensus statement recommended.

These include the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGAAD), and the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) multiplied by or measured concurrently with a body surface area (BSA) assessment.

The recommendations are part of a consensus statement based on an updated systematic review conducted by the Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema Clinical Practice (HOME-CP) initiative, whose goal is to identify validated, feasible outcome instruments designed to measure AD in the clinical setting. In the statement, which was published in JAMA Dermatology on May 22, 2024, corresponding author Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors described HOME-CP as “a ‘pick-and-choose’ list of valid and feasible OMIs [outcome measure instruments] that can be incorporated into the practice setting depending on the particular need of that clinic or health system.”

For the effort, the authors implemented a mixed methods design and incorporated systematic reviews and qualitative consensus methods modeled after the HOME core outcome set initiative, which developed a set of consensus-based core outcome sets for clinical trials and clinical practice. In October of 2022, a daylong in-person consensus exercise was held in Montreal, Canada, where attendees met to reach consensus on recommended instruments to measure AD clinical signs in clinical practice, based on an updated systematic review evaluating the validity of clinical signs instruments.

The review included 22 studies describing 16 instruments that assessed AD clinical signs and an additional 12 variants of instruments. The meeting was attended by 34 individuals from 13 countries, including patient and patient advocate research partners, health care professionals, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives. Consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement.

Following their daylong consensus exercise, the stakeholders reached consensus on recommendations to use the EASI, the vIGAAD, and an IGA multiplied or measured alongside a BSA measurement to measure the domain of clinical signs of AD in the clinical practice setting. “The use of multiple IGAs, most with insufficient validation, and the diverse methods used to assess BSA prevented participants from making specific recommendations for the exact IGA/BSA instrument,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that clinicians include at least one of the recommended instruments in their clinical practices and in documentation.” 

They explained that the ideal method of measuring BSA was difficult to assess “because multiple techniques exist for its measurement, including regional percentages, the Rule of Nines, or the handprint method. Most studies did not report which method was performed, and to our knowledge, no studies have been performed in patients with AD that have formally compared them.”

During the consensus exercise, the authors noted, several clinicians “expressed concern whether the EASI was feasible for universal use in clinical practice given its complexity, long completion time, and documentation/calculation requirements.” But clinicians who commonly perform the EASI in clinical practice said that the time it takes to complete this measure “has dropped substantially and now is not a considerable burden,” they wrote, adding that, “studies have shown that with trained investigators, EASI completion times can be as low as nearly 2 minutes.”

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of their recommendations, including the lack of input from primary care clinicians. “It is unknown whether ClinROMs [clinician-reported outcome measures] for AD clinical signs are used in the primary care setting, especially given the large amount of conditions that are managed simultaneously and the ever-increasing number of primary care documentation requirements,” they wrote.

Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the consensus statement, said that with the advent of new, improved, and more expensive medications for AD, “it is ever more important that [the clinical] assessment is reliable and reproducible.”

Insurers “are understandably less willing to rubber-stamp approval of more expensive medications without a reliable standard by which to justify such decisions,” he added. “This is even more important in a disease state like atopic dermatitis that lacks a reliable biomarker. Therefore, one or several practical, reliable, validated severity metrics will help standardize and improve AD care.”

Dr. Sidbury, who cochaired the 2023 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care for the management of AD in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies, added that the instruments evaluated in the review “can be challenging for anyone,” not just primary care providers. “The EASI isn’t that easy, and while there is a learning curve and it ultimately does, like anything, become more efficient in the gathering, it is unclear if non-AD researchers will be willing to invest the time” to routinely use it, he said.

Dr. Simpson and several coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an investigator for Regeneron, Galderma, UCB, Castle, and Pfizer; is a consultant for LEO, Lilly, Arcutis, Dermavant, and Pierre Fabre; and a speaker for Beiersdorf.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Clinicians should incorporate at least one of three validated instruments to measure signs of atopic dermatitis (AD) in their clinical practice, the authors of a new consensus statement recommended.

These include the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGAAD), and the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) multiplied by or measured concurrently with a body surface area (BSA) assessment.

The recommendations are part of a consensus statement based on an updated systematic review conducted by the Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema Clinical Practice (HOME-CP) initiative, whose goal is to identify validated, feasible outcome instruments designed to measure AD in the clinical setting. In the statement, which was published in JAMA Dermatology on May 22, 2024, corresponding author Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors described HOME-CP as “a ‘pick-and-choose’ list of valid and feasible OMIs [outcome measure instruments] that can be incorporated into the practice setting depending on the particular need of that clinic or health system.”

For the effort, the authors implemented a mixed methods design and incorporated systematic reviews and qualitative consensus methods modeled after the HOME core outcome set initiative, which developed a set of consensus-based core outcome sets for clinical trials and clinical practice. In October of 2022, a daylong in-person consensus exercise was held in Montreal, Canada, where attendees met to reach consensus on recommended instruments to measure AD clinical signs in clinical practice, based on an updated systematic review evaluating the validity of clinical signs instruments.

The review included 22 studies describing 16 instruments that assessed AD clinical signs and an additional 12 variants of instruments. The meeting was attended by 34 individuals from 13 countries, including patient and patient advocate research partners, health care professionals, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives. Consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement.

Following their daylong consensus exercise, the stakeholders reached consensus on recommendations to use the EASI, the vIGAAD, and an IGA multiplied or measured alongside a BSA measurement to measure the domain of clinical signs of AD in the clinical practice setting. “The use of multiple IGAs, most with insufficient validation, and the diverse methods used to assess BSA prevented participants from making specific recommendations for the exact IGA/BSA instrument,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that clinicians include at least one of the recommended instruments in their clinical practices and in documentation.” 

They explained that the ideal method of measuring BSA was difficult to assess “because multiple techniques exist for its measurement, including regional percentages, the Rule of Nines, or the handprint method. Most studies did not report which method was performed, and to our knowledge, no studies have been performed in patients with AD that have formally compared them.”

During the consensus exercise, the authors noted, several clinicians “expressed concern whether the EASI was feasible for universal use in clinical practice given its complexity, long completion time, and documentation/calculation requirements.” But clinicians who commonly perform the EASI in clinical practice said that the time it takes to complete this measure “has dropped substantially and now is not a considerable burden,” they wrote, adding that, “studies have shown that with trained investigators, EASI completion times can be as low as nearly 2 minutes.”

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of their recommendations, including the lack of input from primary care clinicians. “It is unknown whether ClinROMs [clinician-reported outcome measures] for AD clinical signs are used in the primary care setting, especially given the large amount of conditions that are managed simultaneously and the ever-increasing number of primary care documentation requirements,” they wrote.

Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the consensus statement, said that with the advent of new, improved, and more expensive medications for AD, “it is ever more important that [the clinical] assessment is reliable and reproducible.”

Insurers “are understandably less willing to rubber-stamp approval of more expensive medications without a reliable standard by which to justify such decisions,” he added. “This is even more important in a disease state like atopic dermatitis that lacks a reliable biomarker. Therefore, one or several practical, reliable, validated severity metrics will help standardize and improve AD care.”

Dr. Sidbury, who cochaired the 2023 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care for the management of AD in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies, added that the instruments evaluated in the review “can be challenging for anyone,” not just primary care providers. “The EASI isn’t that easy, and while there is a learning curve and it ultimately does, like anything, become more efficient in the gathering, it is unclear if non-AD researchers will be willing to invest the time” to routinely use it, he said.

Dr. Simpson and several coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an investigator for Regeneron, Galderma, UCB, Castle, and Pfizer; is a consultant for LEO, Lilly, Arcutis, Dermavant, and Pierre Fabre; and a speaker for Beiersdorf.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

BOSTON — Primary care clinicians face challenges in knowledge and care coordination as they care for a rising number of cancer survivors in the United States, according to panelists who spoke during a workshop at the 2024 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

By the year 2040, an estimated 26 million people will have lived ≥ 5 years after their initial cancer diagnosis, an increase of eight million from 2022, according to the National Cancer Institute. Primary care clinicians must help patients with new health problems that emerge as the result of previous cancer treatments and with side effects that can last for decades.

“It’s a good thing that more people are living longer and living better after cancer, but now that means we have to train an army of primary care doctors to feel empowered to take care of these patients in a general setting,” said Ilana Yurkiewicz, MD, an oncologist, internal medicine physician, and clinical assistant professor at Stanford University, Stanford, California, who co-moderated the workshop.

Dr. Yurkiewicz and her fellow panelists emphasized the high likelihood that every primary care clinician is currently caring for a survivor of cancer.

One of the greatest barriers these clinicians face in caring for survivors is the difficulty in getting screening tests paid for by insurers, according to Regina Jacob, MD, associate professor at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, who co-moderated the session.

“We have a tough time getting surveillance tests [for cancer] covered through insurance” because in some cases physician groups do not provide consensus on which surveillance tools to use or how often people should be screened, Dr. Jacob said.

For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association and the US Preventive Services Task Force — which many insurers use as basis for coverage determinations — offer differing recommendations.

Primary care physicians also face challenges in understanding the complexity of conditions patients may face during and after cancer treatment since conditions that emerge from cancer or treatment may vary among patients.

“Cancer survivorship starts the day of the diagnosis,” said Dr. Yurkiewicz. “It doesn’t necessarily mean someone who has completed cancer treatment.”

During the workshop, participants offered their own recommendations for care based on case studies, which included issues such as long-term effects of cancer and its therapies, which may arise immediately after or even years or decades after treatment.

A common situation for cancer survivors involves new health issues that occur after treatment has ended.

“Who do they turn to in cases where they don’t know if it’s related to the cancer or the cancer treatment or are separate issues? Do they turn to their oncologist? Do they turn to their primary care doctor?” Dr. Yurkiewicz said. “How should I, the primary care doctor, be thinking about the issue?”

She proposed that primary care clinicians give patients a 2-week waiting period at the onset of a symptom before intervening.

Participants also suggested establishing rapport with the treating oncologist and other specialists so that if a question arises, the primary care clinician can ask for advice.

The method physicians choose to communicate and coordinate care should be tailored to the health system in which they work, participants suggested.

“Some people have the luxury of having a unified electronic health record; some people don’t have that luxury,” said Dr. Jacob. “Recognize the institution in which you work, recognize the context in which you work, and develop a communication strategy that closes the gap.”

The moderators reported no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON — Primary care clinicians face challenges in knowledge and care coordination as they care for a rising number of cancer survivors in the United States, according to panelists who spoke during a workshop at the 2024 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

By the year 2040, an estimated 26 million people will have lived ≥ 5 years after their initial cancer diagnosis, an increase of eight million from 2022, according to the National Cancer Institute. Primary care clinicians must help patients with new health problems that emerge as the result of previous cancer treatments and with side effects that can last for decades.

“It’s a good thing that more people are living longer and living better after cancer, but now that means we have to train an army of primary care doctors to feel empowered to take care of these patients in a general setting,” said Ilana Yurkiewicz, MD, an oncologist, internal medicine physician, and clinical assistant professor at Stanford University, Stanford, California, who co-moderated the workshop.

Dr. Yurkiewicz and her fellow panelists emphasized the high likelihood that every primary care clinician is currently caring for a survivor of cancer.

One of the greatest barriers these clinicians face in caring for survivors is the difficulty in getting screening tests paid for by insurers, according to Regina Jacob, MD, associate professor at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, who co-moderated the session.

“We have a tough time getting surveillance tests [for cancer] covered through insurance” because in some cases physician groups do not provide consensus on which surveillance tools to use or how often people should be screened, Dr. Jacob said.

For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association and the US Preventive Services Task Force — which many insurers use as basis for coverage determinations — offer differing recommendations.

Primary care physicians also face challenges in understanding the complexity of conditions patients may face during and after cancer treatment since conditions that emerge from cancer or treatment may vary among patients.

“Cancer survivorship starts the day of the diagnosis,” said Dr. Yurkiewicz. “It doesn’t necessarily mean someone who has completed cancer treatment.”

During the workshop, participants offered their own recommendations for care based on case studies, which included issues such as long-term effects of cancer and its therapies, which may arise immediately after or even years or decades after treatment.

A common situation for cancer survivors involves new health issues that occur after treatment has ended.

“Who do they turn to in cases where they don’t know if it’s related to the cancer or the cancer treatment or are separate issues? Do they turn to their oncologist? Do they turn to their primary care doctor?” Dr. Yurkiewicz said. “How should I, the primary care doctor, be thinking about the issue?”

She proposed that primary care clinicians give patients a 2-week waiting period at the onset of a symptom before intervening.

Participants also suggested establishing rapport with the treating oncologist and other specialists so that if a question arises, the primary care clinician can ask for advice.

The method physicians choose to communicate and coordinate care should be tailored to the health system in which they work, participants suggested.

“Some people have the luxury of having a unified electronic health record; some people don’t have that luxury,” said Dr. Jacob. “Recognize the institution in which you work, recognize the context in which you work, and develop a communication strategy that closes the gap.”

The moderators reported no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON — Primary care clinicians face challenges in knowledge and care coordination as they care for a rising number of cancer survivors in the United States, according to panelists who spoke during a workshop at the 2024 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

By the year 2040, an estimated 26 million people will have lived ≥ 5 years after their initial cancer diagnosis, an increase of eight million from 2022, according to the National Cancer Institute. Primary care clinicians must help patients with new health problems that emerge as the result of previous cancer treatments and with side effects that can last for decades.

“It’s a good thing that more people are living longer and living better after cancer, but now that means we have to train an army of primary care doctors to feel empowered to take care of these patients in a general setting,” said Ilana Yurkiewicz, MD, an oncologist, internal medicine physician, and clinical assistant professor at Stanford University, Stanford, California, who co-moderated the workshop.

Dr. Yurkiewicz and her fellow panelists emphasized the high likelihood that every primary care clinician is currently caring for a survivor of cancer.

One of the greatest barriers these clinicians face in caring for survivors is the difficulty in getting screening tests paid for by insurers, according to Regina Jacob, MD, associate professor at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, who co-moderated the session.

“We have a tough time getting surveillance tests [for cancer] covered through insurance” because in some cases physician groups do not provide consensus on which surveillance tools to use or how often people should be screened, Dr. Jacob said.

For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association and the US Preventive Services Task Force — which many insurers use as basis for coverage determinations — offer differing recommendations.

Primary care physicians also face challenges in understanding the complexity of conditions patients may face during and after cancer treatment since conditions that emerge from cancer or treatment may vary among patients.

“Cancer survivorship starts the day of the diagnosis,” said Dr. Yurkiewicz. “It doesn’t necessarily mean someone who has completed cancer treatment.”

During the workshop, participants offered their own recommendations for care based on case studies, which included issues such as long-term effects of cancer and its therapies, which may arise immediately after or even years or decades after treatment.

A common situation for cancer survivors involves new health issues that occur after treatment has ended.

“Who do they turn to in cases where they don’t know if it’s related to the cancer or the cancer treatment or are separate issues? Do they turn to their oncologist? Do they turn to their primary care doctor?” Dr. Yurkiewicz said. “How should I, the primary care doctor, be thinking about the issue?”

She proposed that primary care clinicians give patients a 2-week waiting period at the onset of a symptom before intervening.

Participants also suggested establishing rapport with the treating oncologist and other specialists so that if a question arises, the primary care clinician can ask for advice.

The method physicians choose to communicate and coordinate care should be tailored to the health system in which they work, participants suggested.

“Some people have the luxury of having a unified electronic health record; some people don’t have that luxury,” said Dr. Jacob. “Recognize the institution in which you work, recognize the context in which you work, and develop a communication strategy that closes the gap.”

The moderators reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Teens with classmates who have a mental illness have a significantly greater risk for a psychiatric diagnosis later in life, even after controlling for parents’ mental health history and other factors, a new study suggested.

The research provides new evidence that adolescents within a specific peer network may possibly “transmit” mental disorders such as depression and anxiety to each other, the investigators noted.

Having a classmate with a mental illness was associated with a 3% higher risk for subsequent psychiatric diagnosis, researchers found. The risk was highest — 13% — in the first year of follow-up and was strongest for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders.

The study is said to the be the largest to date on the topic, including data on more than 700,000 ninth graders in Finland who were followed for up to 18 years.

At least one expert noted that the numbers are higher than he would have expected, but the investigators were quick to caution the study doesn’t prove having a classmate with a mental illness leads to later psychiatric diagnosis among peers.

“The associations observed in the study are not necessarily causal,” lead investigator Jussi Alho, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki, Finland, told this news organization. “The study did not investigate the mechanisms that explain the observed associations.”

The results were published online on May 22 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Few Data

Previous studies have reported a clustering of mood symptoms, eating disorders, and other psychiatric illnesses among adolescent and adult social networks. But most involve self-selected peer groups.

“Investigating the transmission of mental disorders is especially important in childhood and adolescence,” the authors noted. “Yet, despite a few survey studies reporting that adolescents may experience increased mental health symptoms when exposed to friends or peers with mental health problems, large-scale studies on the potential peer influences of mental disorders in youth are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Researchers used a database of 713,809 students in the ninth grade, about half boys and half girls. All were born between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 1997. About 47,000 were excluded as they had a mental disorder diagnosis before the study began.

Some 666,000 students in 860 schools were followed from ninth grade until the first diagnosed mental disorder, death, emigration, or the end of the study in 2019. Median follow-up was 11.4 years.

Diagnoses were gathered from Finnish registries for inpatient, outpatient, and primary care and included ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnoses for substance misuse disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, emotional and social-functioning disorders, and hyperkinetic and conduct disorders.

The authors adjusted for sex, birth year, school and ninth-grade class size, area-level urbanicity, area-level morbidity, area-level education, area-level employment rate, parental educational level, and parental mental health, with a random intercept per school.
 

Dose-Response Relationship

Overall, a quarter (167,227) of the students were diagnosed with a mental disorder.

The risk of being diagnosed with any mental disorder was 3% higher during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). Risk was highest in the first year of follow-up (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18) and then rose again in years 4 and 5, when the risk was 5% higher with one diagnosed classmate and 10% higher with more than one diagnosed classmate.

The risk was significantly increased for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders in each follow-up time window. Investigators also noted a dose-response relationship: The more classmates with a psychiatric illness, the greater the risk for later mental illness.

“These findings suggest that mental disorders may be transmitted within adolescent peer networks,” the authors wrote.

The researchers chose to describe the spread of mental disorders among peer classmates as “transmission” in part because it has been previously used in the literature, Dr. Alho said.

Alho said the researchers also believe that transmission is an accurate term to describe the potential mechanisms by which mental disorders may spread.

The authors hypothesized that more students might be diagnosed when disorders are normalized, through increased awareness and receptivity to diagnosis and treatment.

Conversely, the rate of disorders might also have increased — especially in the first year of follow-up — if there were no students in the peer network who had been diagnosed, the authors added. Without an example, it might discourage a student to seek help.

The authors also noted that it’s “conceivable that long-term exposure to a depressive individual could lead to gradual development of depressive symptoms through the well-established neural mechanisms of emotional contagion.”
 

New Direction for Treatment?

Commenting on the findings, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, the Betty Jo Hay Distinguished Chair in Mental Health at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said that the theory that having classmates with psychiatric illness could normalize these conditions has merit.

Once someone is diagnosed or receives treatment, “their peers kind of get implicit permission to be able to then express their own symptoms or express their own problems, which they may have been hiding or not recognized,” he said.

However, Dr. Trivedi disagreed with the authors’ suggestion that the rate of disorders might also have increased if no classmates had received a psychiatric diagnosis, noting that it was unlikely that a student would not have been exposed to depression, anxiety, or another mood disorder — through a peer or family member — given how common those illnesses are.

“The numbers are slightly higher than I would have expected,” Dr. Trivedi said, adding that peer influence having that type of impact “is something that has not been shown before.”

The study is notable for its use of comprehensive registries, which helped solidify the data integrity, Trivedi said, and the results offer some potential new directions for treatment, such as adding peer support. That has been found useful in adult treatment but has been less utilized with adolescents, he said.

The study was funded by the European Union and the Academy of Finland. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens with classmates who have a mental illness have a significantly greater risk for a psychiatric diagnosis later in life, even after controlling for parents’ mental health history and other factors, a new study suggested.

The research provides new evidence that adolescents within a specific peer network may possibly “transmit” mental disorders such as depression and anxiety to each other, the investigators noted.

Having a classmate with a mental illness was associated with a 3% higher risk for subsequent psychiatric diagnosis, researchers found. The risk was highest — 13% — in the first year of follow-up and was strongest for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders.

The study is said to the be the largest to date on the topic, including data on more than 700,000 ninth graders in Finland who were followed for up to 18 years.

At least one expert noted that the numbers are higher than he would have expected, but the investigators were quick to caution the study doesn’t prove having a classmate with a mental illness leads to later psychiatric diagnosis among peers.

“The associations observed in the study are not necessarily causal,” lead investigator Jussi Alho, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki, Finland, told this news organization. “The study did not investigate the mechanisms that explain the observed associations.”

The results were published online on May 22 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Few Data

Previous studies have reported a clustering of mood symptoms, eating disorders, and other psychiatric illnesses among adolescent and adult social networks. But most involve self-selected peer groups.

“Investigating the transmission of mental disorders is especially important in childhood and adolescence,” the authors noted. “Yet, despite a few survey studies reporting that adolescents may experience increased mental health symptoms when exposed to friends or peers with mental health problems, large-scale studies on the potential peer influences of mental disorders in youth are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Researchers used a database of 713,809 students in the ninth grade, about half boys and half girls. All were born between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 1997. About 47,000 were excluded as they had a mental disorder diagnosis before the study began.

Some 666,000 students in 860 schools were followed from ninth grade until the first diagnosed mental disorder, death, emigration, or the end of the study in 2019. Median follow-up was 11.4 years.

Diagnoses were gathered from Finnish registries for inpatient, outpatient, and primary care and included ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnoses for substance misuse disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, emotional and social-functioning disorders, and hyperkinetic and conduct disorders.

The authors adjusted for sex, birth year, school and ninth-grade class size, area-level urbanicity, area-level morbidity, area-level education, area-level employment rate, parental educational level, and parental mental health, with a random intercept per school.
 

Dose-Response Relationship

Overall, a quarter (167,227) of the students were diagnosed with a mental disorder.

The risk of being diagnosed with any mental disorder was 3% higher during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). Risk was highest in the first year of follow-up (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18) and then rose again in years 4 and 5, when the risk was 5% higher with one diagnosed classmate and 10% higher with more than one diagnosed classmate.

The risk was significantly increased for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders in each follow-up time window. Investigators also noted a dose-response relationship: The more classmates with a psychiatric illness, the greater the risk for later mental illness.

“These findings suggest that mental disorders may be transmitted within adolescent peer networks,” the authors wrote.

The researchers chose to describe the spread of mental disorders among peer classmates as “transmission” in part because it has been previously used in the literature, Dr. Alho said.

Alho said the researchers also believe that transmission is an accurate term to describe the potential mechanisms by which mental disorders may spread.

The authors hypothesized that more students might be diagnosed when disorders are normalized, through increased awareness and receptivity to diagnosis and treatment.

Conversely, the rate of disorders might also have increased — especially in the first year of follow-up — if there were no students in the peer network who had been diagnosed, the authors added. Without an example, it might discourage a student to seek help.

The authors also noted that it’s “conceivable that long-term exposure to a depressive individual could lead to gradual development of depressive symptoms through the well-established neural mechanisms of emotional contagion.”
 

New Direction for Treatment?

Commenting on the findings, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, the Betty Jo Hay Distinguished Chair in Mental Health at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said that the theory that having classmates with psychiatric illness could normalize these conditions has merit.

Once someone is diagnosed or receives treatment, “their peers kind of get implicit permission to be able to then express their own symptoms or express their own problems, which they may have been hiding or not recognized,” he said.

However, Dr. Trivedi disagreed with the authors’ suggestion that the rate of disorders might also have increased if no classmates had received a psychiatric diagnosis, noting that it was unlikely that a student would not have been exposed to depression, anxiety, or another mood disorder — through a peer or family member — given how common those illnesses are.

“The numbers are slightly higher than I would have expected,” Dr. Trivedi said, adding that peer influence having that type of impact “is something that has not been shown before.”

The study is notable for its use of comprehensive registries, which helped solidify the data integrity, Trivedi said, and the results offer some potential new directions for treatment, such as adding peer support. That has been found useful in adult treatment but has been less utilized with adolescents, he said.

The study was funded by the European Union and the Academy of Finland. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens with classmates who have a mental illness have a significantly greater risk for a psychiatric diagnosis later in life, even after controlling for parents’ mental health history and other factors, a new study suggested.

The research provides new evidence that adolescents within a specific peer network may possibly “transmit” mental disorders such as depression and anxiety to each other, the investigators noted.

Having a classmate with a mental illness was associated with a 3% higher risk for subsequent psychiatric diagnosis, researchers found. The risk was highest — 13% — in the first year of follow-up and was strongest for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders.

The study is said to the be the largest to date on the topic, including data on more than 700,000 ninth graders in Finland who were followed for up to 18 years.

At least one expert noted that the numbers are higher than he would have expected, but the investigators were quick to caution the study doesn’t prove having a classmate with a mental illness leads to later psychiatric diagnosis among peers.

“The associations observed in the study are not necessarily causal,” lead investigator Jussi Alho, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki, Finland, told this news organization. “The study did not investigate the mechanisms that explain the observed associations.”

The results were published online on May 22 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Few Data

Previous studies have reported a clustering of mood symptoms, eating disorders, and other psychiatric illnesses among adolescent and adult social networks. But most involve self-selected peer groups.

“Investigating the transmission of mental disorders is especially important in childhood and adolescence,” the authors noted. “Yet, despite a few survey studies reporting that adolescents may experience increased mental health symptoms when exposed to friends or peers with mental health problems, large-scale studies on the potential peer influences of mental disorders in youth are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Researchers used a database of 713,809 students in the ninth grade, about half boys and half girls. All were born between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 1997. About 47,000 were excluded as they had a mental disorder diagnosis before the study began.

Some 666,000 students in 860 schools were followed from ninth grade until the first diagnosed mental disorder, death, emigration, or the end of the study in 2019. Median follow-up was 11.4 years.

Diagnoses were gathered from Finnish registries for inpatient, outpatient, and primary care and included ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnoses for substance misuse disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, emotional and social-functioning disorders, and hyperkinetic and conduct disorders.

The authors adjusted for sex, birth year, school and ninth-grade class size, area-level urbanicity, area-level morbidity, area-level education, area-level employment rate, parental educational level, and parental mental health, with a random intercept per school.
 

Dose-Response Relationship

Overall, a quarter (167,227) of the students were diagnosed with a mental disorder.

The risk of being diagnosed with any mental disorder was 3% higher during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). Risk was highest in the first year of follow-up (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18) and then rose again in years 4 and 5, when the risk was 5% higher with one diagnosed classmate and 10% higher with more than one diagnosed classmate.

The risk was significantly increased for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders in each follow-up time window. Investigators also noted a dose-response relationship: The more classmates with a psychiatric illness, the greater the risk for later mental illness.

“These findings suggest that mental disorders may be transmitted within adolescent peer networks,” the authors wrote.

The researchers chose to describe the spread of mental disorders among peer classmates as “transmission” in part because it has been previously used in the literature, Dr. Alho said.

Alho said the researchers also believe that transmission is an accurate term to describe the potential mechanisms by which mental disorders may spread.

The authors hypothesized that more students might be diagnosed when disorders are normalized, through increased awareness and receptivity to diagnosis and treatment.

Conversely, the rate of disorders might also have increased — especially in the first year of follow-up — if there were no students in the peer network who had been diagnosed, the authors added. Without an example, it might discourage a student to seek help.

The authors also noted that it’s “conceivable that long-term exposure to a depressive individual could lead to gradual development of depressive symptoms through the well-established neural mechanisms of emotional contagion.”
 

New Direction for Treatment?

Commenting on the findings, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, the Betty Jo Hay Distinguished Chair in Mental Health at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said that the theory that having classmates with psychiatric illness could normalize these conditions has merit.

Once someone is diagnosed or receives treatment, “their peers kind of get implicit permission to be able to then express their own symptoms or express their own problems, which they may have been hiding or not recognized,” he said.

However, Dr. Trivedi disagreed with the authors’ suggestion that the rate of disorders might also have increased if no classmates had received a psychiatric diagnosis, noting that it was unlikely that a student would not have been exposed to depression, anxiety, or another mood disorder — through a peer or family member — given how common those illnesses are.

“The numbers are slightly higher than I would have expected,” Dr. Trivedi said, adding that peer influence having that type of impact “is something that has not been shown before.”

The study is notable for its use of comprehensive registries, which helped solidify the data integrity, Trivedi said, and the results offer some potential new directions for treatment, such as adding peer support. That has been found useful in adult treatment but has been less utilized with adolescents, he said.

The study was funded by the European Union and the Academy of Finland. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study found that use of e-cigarettes by parents was associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• AD is one of the most common inflammatory conditions in children and is linked to environmental risk factors, such as exposure to secondhand smoke and prenatal exposure to tobacco.
• To address the effect of e-cigarettes use on children, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative sample of the US population.
• The analysis included 48,637,111 individuals (mean age, 8.4 years), with 6,354,515 (13%) indicating a history of AD (mean age, 8 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of parental e-cigarette use was 18.0% among individuals with AD, compared with 14.4% among those without AD.
• This corresponded to a 24% higher risk for AD associated with parental e-cigarette use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42).
• The association between e-cigarette use and AD in children held regardless of parent’s sex.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that parental e-cigarette use was associated with pediatric AD,” the authors concluded. They noted that the authors of a previous study that associated e-cigarette use with AD in adults postulated that the cause was “the inflammatory state created by” e-cigarettes.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Gun Min Youn, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional survey design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. Defining e-cigarette use as a single past instance could affect the strength of the findings. Only past-year e-cigarette use was considered. Furthermore, data on pediatric cigarette or e-cigarette use, a potential confounder, were unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose funding information. One author reported receiving consultation fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study found that use of e-cigarettes by parents was associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• AD is one of the most common inflammatory conditions in children and is linked to environmental risk factors, such as exposure to secondhand smoke and prenatal exposure to tobacco.
• To address the effect of e-cigarettes use on children, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative sample of the US population.
• The analysis included 48,637,111 individuals (mean age, 8.4 years), with 6,354,515 (13%) indicating a history of AD (mean age, 8 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of parental e-cigarette use was 18.0% among individuals with AD, compared with 14.4% among those without AD.
• This corresponded to a 24% higher risk for AD associated with parental e-cigarette use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42).
• The association between e-cigarette use and AD in children held regardless of parent’s sex.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that parental e-cigarette use was associated with pediatric AD,” the authors concluded. They noted that the authors of a previous study that associated e-cigarette use with AD in adults postulated that the cause was “the inflammatory state created by” e-cigarettes.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Gun Min Youn, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional survey design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. Defining e-cigarette use as a single past instance could affect the strength of the findings. Only past-year e-cigarette use was considered. Furthermore, data on pediatric cigarette or e-cigarette use, a potential confounder, were unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose funding information. One author reported receiving consultation fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study found that use of e-cigarettes by parents was associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• AD is one of the most common inflammatory conditions in children and is linked to environmental risk factors, such as exposure to secondhand smoke and prenatal exposure to tobacco.
• To address the effect of e-cigarettes use on children, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative sample of the US population.
• The analysis included 48,637,111 individuals (mean age, 8.4 years), with 6,354,515 (13%) indicating a history of AD (mean age, 8 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of parental e-cigarette use was 18.0% among individuals with AD, compared with 14.4% among those without AD.
• This corresponded to a 24% higher risk for AD associated with parental e-cigarette use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42).
• The association between e-cigarette use and AD in children held regardless of parent’s sex.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that parental e-cigarette use was associated with pediatric AD,” the authors concluded. They noted that the authors of a previous study that associated e-cigarette use with AD in adults postulated that the cause was “the inflammatory state created by” e-cigarettes.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Gun Min Youn, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional survey design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. Defining e-cigarette use as a single past instance could affect the strength of the findings. Only past-year e-cigarette use was considered. Furthermore, data on pediatric cigarette or e-cigarette use, a potential confounder, were unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose funding information. One author reported receiving consultation fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About one in six children (17%) between 3 and 17 years have a disability, which may affect their ability to make decisions when they transition to adulthood.

Typically, at age 18, a young adult assumes rights such as the legal right to make medical decisions (including reproductive decisions), and mental health, financial, and education decisions.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently issued a policy statement in Pediatrics to help pediatricians help young people with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities (IDD) and their families with alternative ways to make those decisions if necessary .
 

Several Options in the Continuum

The AAP describes a continuum of decision-making for youth with IDD from fully autonomous decisions to decisions made by an appointed guardian.

Highlighting an array of options is one way this paper is helpful, said Matthew Siegel, MD, chief of clinical enterprise with the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts. “I suspect that for a lot of practitioners what they’re aware of is guardianship or no guardianship.” These authors highlight that the options are more nuanced, he said.

Pediatricians have widely different ideas about what their role should be in facilitating decision-making in the transition period, he said, so this paper helps clarify what advocacy and discussion are needed.

The paper, written by first author Renee M. Turchi, MD, MPH, and colleagues on behalf of the Council on Children with Disabilities’ Committee on Medical Liability and Risk Management, states that, “The goal should always be the least restrictive decision-making that balances autonomy with safety and supports.”
 

One Alternative Is Supported Decision-Making

Supported decision-making is one alternative to guardianship. Authors explain that under that framework, a patient can choose a trusted support person and create an agreement with that person on what kinds of decisions the person needs help with and how much assistance is needed. The individual makes the final decision, not the support person.

Authors explain the benefits of that approach: “Individuals with IDD who use supported decision-making report increased confidence in themselves and their decision-making, improved decision-making skills, increased engagement with their community, and perceived more control of their lives,” the authors wrote.

Another option for people with IDD might be, rather than formally naming a substitute decision-maker, allowing a parent or caregiver access to their electronic health record or allowing that person to have independent discussions with their physician.

With guardianship, also called conservatorship in some states, a court requires clear and convincing evidence that the youth is not competent to make his or her own decisions. The court may order evaluations by many professionals, including pediatricians.
 

State-Specific Legal Information Is Available

Many states have recently enacted laws surrounding supported decision-making and guardianship. The authors reference a national resource center website that details the legislation for each state and points to resources and tools for pediatricians, families, and patients.

“Historically, pediatricians have rarely discussed the legal aspects of transition to adult-oriented services with the youth with IDD and subsequently, their families,” the authors wrote.
 

Discussions Should Start Early

Ideally, the authors wrote, the discussions about what level of supports might be necessary in the transition to adulthood should start at age 12-14 and include the youth, teachers, parents, and the medical team.

That’s earlier than some of the previous guidance, Dr. Siegel said, and it will be important to evaluate future evidence on the best age to start planning “both from a cognitive development standpoint and from a practicality standpoint.”

The authors point out that the needs for level of support may change and “pediatricians can reevaluate the decision-making arrangement as part of the annual physical/mental examinations to align with the youth’s desires, needs, and decision-making abilities over time.”

The authors and Dr. Siegel report no relevant financial relationships.

About one in six children (17%) between 3 and 17 years have a disability, which may affect their ability to make decisions when they transition to adulthood.

Typically, at age 18, a young adult assumes rights such as the legal right to make medical decisions (including reproductive decisions), and mental health, financial, and education decisions.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently issued a policy statement in Pediatrics to help pediatricians help young people with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities (IDD) and their families with alternative ways to make those decisions if necessary .
 

Several Options in the Continuum

The AAP describes a continuum of decision-making for youth with IDD from fully autonomous decisions to decisions made by an appointed guardian.

Highlighting an array of options is one way this paper is helpful, said Matthew Siegel, MD, chief of clinical enterprise with the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts. “I suspect that for a lot of practitioners what they’re aware of is guardianship or no guardianship.” These authors highlight that the options are more nuanced, he said.

Pediatricians have widely different ideas about what their role should be in facilitating decision-making in the transition period, he said, so this paper helps clarify what advocacy and discussion are needed.

The paper, written by first author Renee M. Turchi, MD, MPH, and colleagues on behalf of the Council on Children with Disabilities’ Committee on Medical Liability and Risk Management, states that, “The goal should always be the least restrictive decision-making that balances autonomy with safety and supports.”
 

One Alternative Is Supported Decision-Making

Supported decision-making is one alternative to guardianship. Authors explain that under that framework, a patient can choose a trusted support person and create an agreement with that person on what kinds of decisions the person needs help with and how much assistance is needed. The individual makes the final decision, not the support person.

Authors explain the benefits of that approach: “Individuals with IDD who use supported decision-making report increased confidence in themselves and their decision-making, improved decision-making skills, increased engagement with their community, and perceived more control of their lives,” the authors wrote.

Another option for people with IDD might be, rather than formally naming a substitute decision-maker, allowing a parent or caregiver access to their electronic health record or allowing that person to have independent discussions with their physician.

With guardianship, also called conservatorship in some states, a court requires clear and convincing evidence that the youth is not competent to make his or her own decisions. The court may order evaluations by many professionals, including pediatricians.
 

State-Specific Legal Information Is Available

Many states have recently enacted laws surrounding supported decision-making and guardianship. The authors reference a national resource center website that details the legislation for each state and points to resources and tools for pediatricians, families, and patients.

“Historically, pediatricians have rarely discussed the legal aspects of transition to adult-oriented services with the youth with IDD and subsequently, their families,” the authors wrote.
 

Discussions Should Start Early

Ideally, the authors wrote, the discussions about what level of supports might be necessary in the transition to adulthood should start at age 12-14 and include the youth, teachers, parents, and the medical team.

That’s earlier than some of the previous guidance, Dr. Siegel said, and it will be important to evaluate future evidence on the best age to start planning “both from a cognitive development standpoint and from a practicality standpoint.”

The authors point out that the needs for level of support may change and “pediatricians can reevaluate the decision-making arrangement as part of the annual physical/mental examinations to align with the youth’s desires, needs, and decision-making abilities over time.”

The authors and Dr. Siegel report no relevant financial relationships.

About one in six children (17%) between 3 and 17 years have a disability, which may affect their ability to make decisions when they transition to adulthood.

Typically, at age 18, a young adult assumes rights such as the legal right to make medical decisions (including reproductive decisions), and mental health, financial, and education decisions.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently issued a policy statement in Pediatrics to help pediatricians help young people with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities (IDD) and their families with alternative ways to make those decisions if necessary .
 

Several Options in the Continuum

The AAP describes a continuum of decision-making for youth with IDD from fully autonomous decisions to decisions made by an appointed guardian.

Highlighting an array of options is one way this paper is helpful, said Matthew Siegel, MD, chief of clinical enterprise with the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts. “I suspect that for a lot of practitioners what they’re aware of is guardianship or no guardianship.” These authors highlight that the options are more nuanced, he said.

Pediatricians have widely different ideas about what their role should be in facilitating decision-making in the transition period, he said, so this paper helps clarify what advocacy and discussion are needed.

The paper, written by first author Renee M. Turchi, MD, MPH, and colleagues on behalf of the Council on Children with Disabilities’ Committee on Medical Liability and Risk Management, states that, “The goal should always be the least restrictive decision-making that balances autonomy with safety and supports.”
 

One Alternative Is Supported Decision-Making

Supported decision-making is one alternative to guardianship. Authors explain that under that framework, a patient can choose a trusted support person and create an agreement with that person on what kinds of decisions the person needs help with and how much assistance is needed. The individual makes the final decision, not the support person.

Authors explain the benefits of that approach: “Individuals with IDD who use supported decision-making report increased confidence in themselves and their decision-making, improved decision-making skills, increased engagement with their community, and perceived more control of their lives,” the authors wrote.

Another option for people with IDD might be, rather than formally naming a substitute decision-maker, allowing a parent or caregiver access to their electronic health record or allowing that person to have independent discussions with their physician.

With guardianship, also called conservatorship in some states, a court requires clear and convincing evidence that the youth is not competent to make his or her own decisions. The court may order evaluations by many professionals, including pediatricians.
 

State-Specific Legal Information Is Available

Many states have recently enacted laws surrounding supported decision-making and guardianship. The authors reference a national resource center website that details the legislation for each state and points to resources and tools for pediatricians, families, and patients.

“Historically, pediatricians have rarely discussed the legal aspects of transition to adult-oriented services with the youth with IDD and subsequently, their families,” the authors wrote.
 

Discussions Should Start Early

Ideally, the authors wrote, the discussions about what level of supports might be necessary in the transition to adulthood should start at age 12-14 and include the youth, teachers, parents, and the medical team.

That’s earlier than some of the previous guidance, Dr. Siegel said, and it will be important to evaluate future evidence on the best age to start planning “both from a cognitive development standpoint and from a practicality standpoint.”

The authors point out that the needs for level of support may change and “pediatricians can reevaluate the decision-making arrangement as part of the annual physical/mental examinations to align with the youth’s desires, needs, and decision-making abilities over time.”

The authors and Dr. Siegel report no relevant financial relationships.