Rheumatology News

Diagnostic errors are common in hospitals and are largely preventable, according to a new observational study led by Anuj K. Dalal, MD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

Dalal and his colleagues found that 1 in 14 general medicine patients (7%) suffer harm due to diagnostic errors, and up to 85% of these cases could be prevented.
 

Few Studies on Diagnostic Errors

The study found that adverse event surveillance in hospital underestimated the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors.

“It is difficult to quantify and characterize diagnostic errors, which have been studied less than medication errors,” Micaela La Regina, MD, an internist and head of the Clinical Governance and Risk Management Unit at ASL 5 in La Spezia, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Generally, it is estimated that around 50% of diagnostic errors are preventable, but the authors of this study went beyond simply observing the hospital admission period and followed their sample for 90 days after discharge. Their findings will need to be verified in other studies, but they seem convincing.”

The researchers in Boston selected a random sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9147 eligible cases who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-December 2020). They retrospectively reviewed the patients’ electronic health records using a structured method to evaluate the diagnostic process for potential errors and then estimated the impact and severity of any harm.

Cases sampled were those featuring transfer to intensive care more than 24 hours after admission (100% of 130 cases), death within 90 days of hospital admission or after discharge (38.5% of 141 cases), complex clinical problems without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days of admission (7% of 298 cases), and 2.4% of 106 cases without high-risk criteria.

Each case was reviewed by two experts trained in the use of diagnostic error evaluation and research taxonomy, modified for acute care. Harm was classified as mild, moderate, severe, or fatal. The review assessed whether diagnostic error contributed to the harm and whether it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainties regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were further examined by an expert panel.
 

Most Frequent Situations

Among all the cases examined, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances in 154 patients. The most frequent situations with diagnostic errors involved transfer to intensive care (54 cases), death within 90 days (34 cases), and complex clinical problems (52 cases). Diagnostic errors causing harm were found in 84 cases (82 patients), of which 37 (28.5%) occurred in those transferred to intensive care; 18 (13%) among patients who died within 90 days; 23 (8%) among patients with complex clinical issues; and 6 (6%) in low-risk cases.

The severity of harm was categorized as minor in 5 cases (6%), moderate in 36 (43%), major in 25 (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, the researchers estimated that the proportion of harmful, preventable diagnostic errors with serious harm in general medicine patients was slightly more than 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
 

Most Frequent Diagnoses

The most common diagnoses associated with diagnostic errors in the study included heart failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Dalal and colleagues emphasize the need for more attention to diagnostic error analysis, including the adoption of artificial intelligence–based tools for medical record screening.

“The technological approach, with alert-based systems, can certainly be helpful, but more attention must also be paid to continuous training and the well-being of healthcare workers. It is also crucial to encourage greater listening to caregivers and patients,” said La Regina. She noted that in the past, a focus on error prevention has often led to an increased workload and administrative burden on healthcare workers. However, the well-being of healthcare workers is key to ensuring patient safety.

“Countermeasures to reduce diagnostic errors require a multimodal approach, targeting professionals, the healthcare system, and organizational aspects, because even waiting lists are a critical factor,” she said. As a clinical risk expert, she recently proposed an adaptation of the value-based medicine formula in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care to include healthcare professionals’ care experience as one of the elements that contribute to determining high-value healthcare interventions. “Experiments are already underway to reimburse healthcare costs based on this formula, which also allows the assessment of the value of skills and expertise acquired by healthcare workers,” concluded La Regina.
 

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

Diagnostic errors are common in hospitals and are largely preventable, according to a new observational study led by Anuj K. Dalal, MD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

Dalal and his colleagues found that 1 in 14 general medicine patients (7%) suffer harm due to diagnostic errors, and up to 85% of these cases could be prevented.
 

Few Studies on Diagnostic Errors

The study found that adverse event surveillance in hospital underestimated the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors.

“It is difficult to quantify and characterize diagnostic errors, which have been studied less than medication errors,” Micaela La Regina, MD, an internist and head of the Clinical Governance and Risk Management Unit at ASL 5 in La Spezia, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Generally, it is estimated that around 50% of diagnostic errors are preventable, but the authors of this study went beyond simply observing the hospital admission period and followed their sample for 90 days after discharge. Their findings will need to be verified in other studies, but they seem convincing.”

The researchers in Boston selected a random sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9147 eligible cases who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-December 2020). They retrospectively reviewed the patients’ electronic health records using a structured method to evaluate the diagnostic process for potential errors and then estimated the impact and severity of any harm.

Cases sampled were those featuring transfer to intensive care more than 24 hours after admission (100% of 130 cases), death within 90 days of hospital admission or after discharge (38.5% of 141 cases), complex clinical problems without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days of admission (7% of 298 cases), and 2.4% of 106 cases without high-risk criteria.

Each case was reviewed by two experts trained in the use of diagnostic error evaluation and research taxonomy, modified for acute care. Harm was classified as mild, moderate, severe, or fatal. The review assessed whether diagnostic error contributed to the harm and whether it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainties regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were further examined by an expert panel.
 

Most Frequent Situations

Among all the cases examined, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances in 154 patients. The most frequent situations with diagnostic errors involved transfer to intensive care (54 cases), death within 90 days (34 cases), and complex clinical problems (52 cases). Diagnostic errors causing harm were found in 84 cases (82 patients), of which 37 (28.5%) occurred in those transferred to intensive care; 18 (13%) among patients who died within 90 days; 23 (8%) among patients with complex clinical issues; and 6 (6%) in low-risk cases.

The severity of harm was categorized as minor in 5 cases (6%), moderate in 36 (43%), major in 25 (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, the researchers estimated that the proportion of harmful, preventable diagnostic errors with serious harm in general medicine patients was slightly more than 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
 

Most Frequent Diagnoses

The most common diagnoses associated with diagnostic errors in the study included heart failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Dalal and colleagues emphasize the need for more attention to diagnostic error analysis, including the adoption of artificial intelligence–based tools for medical record screening.

“The technological approach, with alert-based systems, can certainly be helpful, but more attention must also be paid to continuous training and the well-being of healthcare workers. It is also crucial to encourage greater listening to caregivers and patients,” said La Regina. She noted that in the past, a focus on error prevention has often led to an increased workload and administrative burden on healthcare workers. However, the well-being of healthcare workers is key to ensuring patient safety.

“Countermeasures to reduce diagnostic errors require a multimodal approach, targeting professionals, the healthcare system, and organizational aspects, because even waiting lists are a critical factor,” she said. As a clinical risk expert, she recently proposed an adaptation of the value-based medicine formula in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care to include healthcare professionals’ care experience as one of the elements that contribute to determining high-value healthcare interventions. “Experiments are already underway to reimburse healthcare costs based on this formula, which also allows the assessment of the value of skills and expertise acquired by healthcare workers,” concluded La Regina.
 

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

Diagnostic errors are common in hospitals and are largely preventable, according to a new observational study led by Anuj K. Dalal, MD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

Dalal and his colleagues found that 1 in 14 general medicine patients (7%) suffer harm due to diagnostic errors, and up to 85% of these cases could be prevented.
 

Few Studies on Diagnostic Errors

The study found that adverse event surveillance in hospital underestimated the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors.

“It is difficult to quantify and characterize diagnostic errors, which have been studied less than medication errors,” Micaela La Regina, MD, an internist and head of the Clinical Governance and Risk Management Unit at ASL 5 in La Spezia, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Generally, it is estimated that around 50% of diagnostic errors are preventable, but the authors of this study went beyond simply observing the hospital admission period and followed their sample for 90 days after discharge. Their findings will need to be verified in other studies, but they seem convincing.”

The researchers in Boston selected a random sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9147 eligible cases who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-December 2020). They retrospectively reviewed the patients’ electronic health records using a structured method to evaluate the diagnostic process for potential errors and then estimated the impact and severity of any harm.

Cases sampled were those featuring transfer to intensive care more than 24 hours after admission (100% of 130 cases), death within 90 days of hospital admission or after discharge (38.5% of 141 cases), complex clinical problems without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days of admission (7% of 298 cases), and 2.4% of 106 cases without high-risk criteria.

Each case was reviewed by two experts trained in the use of diagnostic error evaluation and research taxonomy, modified for acute care. Harm was classified as mild, moderate, severe, or fatal. The review assessed whether diagnostic error contributed to the harm and whether it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainties regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were further examined by an expert panel.
 

Most Frequent Situations

Among all the cases examined, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances in 154 patients. The most frequent situations with diagnostic errors involved transfer to intensive care (54 cases), death within 90 days (34 cases), and complex clinical problems (52 cases). Diagnostic errors causing harm were found in 84 cases (82 patients), of which 37 (28.5%) occurred in those transferred to intensive care; 18 (13%) among patients who died within 90 days; 23 (8%) among patients with complex clinical issues; and 6 (6%) in low-risk cases.

The severity of harm was categorized as minor in 5 cases (6%), moderate in 36 (43%), major in 25 (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, the researchers estimated that the proportion of harmful, preventable diagnostic errors with serious harm in general medicine patients was slightly more than 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
 

Most Frequent Diagnoses

The most common diagnoses associated with diagnostic errors in the study included heart failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Dalal and colleagues emphasize the need for more attention to diagnostic error analysis, including the adoption of artificial intelligence–based tools for medical record screening.

“The technological approach, with alert-based systems, can certainly be helpful, but more attention must also be paid to continuous training and the well-being of healthcare workers. It is also crucial to encourage greater listening to caregivers and patients,” said La Regina. She noted that in the past, a focus on error prevention has often led to an increased workload and administrative burden on healthcare workers. However, the well-being of healthcare workers is key to ensuring patient safety.

“Countermeasures to reduce diagnostic errors require a multimodal approach, targeting professionals, the healthcare system, and organizational aspects, because even waiting lists are a critical factor,” she said. As a clinical risk expert, she recently proposed an adaptation of the value-based medicine formula in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care to include healthcare professionals’ care experience as one of the elements that contribute to determining high-value healthcare interventions. “Experiments are already underway to reimburse healthcare costs based on this formula, which also allows the assessment of the value of skills and expertise acquired by healthcare workers,” concluded La Regina.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

“Because you know I’m all about that base, ‘bout that base, no acid.” 

Do those words sound familiar? That’s because they’re the lyrics to Meghan Trainor’s “All About That Bass,” slightly tweaked to function as a medical study tool.

Early in med school, J.C. Sue, DO, now a family medicine physician, refashioned the song’s words to help him prepare for a test on acid extruders and loaders. Sue’s version, “All About That Base,” contained his lecture notes. During the exam, he found himself mentally singing his parody and easily recalling the information. Plus, the approach made cramming a lot more palatable.

Sound silly? It’s not. Sue’s approach is backed up by science. A significant body of research has illuminated the positive association between music and memory. And the benefits last. Recently, a 2024 study from Canada suggested that musical memory doesn’t decrease with age. And a 2023 study revealed music was a better cue than food for helping both young and older adults recall autobiographical memories.

Inspired by his success, Sue gave popular songs a medical spin throughout his medical training. “There’s no rule that says studying must be boring, tedious, or torturous,” Sue said. “If you can make it fun, why not?”

Sue isn’t alone. Many physicians say that writing songs, listening to music, or playing instruments improves their focus, energy, and work performance, along with their confidence and well-being.

Why does music work so well?
 

Tune Your Brain to Work With Tunes

Remember learning your ABCs to the tune of “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star?” (Or ask any Gen X person about Schoolhouse Rock.)

In the classroom, music is an established tool for teaching kids, said Ruth Gotian, EdD, MS, chief learning officer and associate professor of education in anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. But she said musical strategies make studying easier for adults, too, no matter how complex the material.

Christopher Emdin, PhD, Maxine Greene chair and professor of science education at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, shares Gotian’s view. When teaching science, engineering, technology, and mathematics (STEM) subjects to high school kids, he challenged them to write raps about the new concepts.

That’s when he saw visible results: As his students took exams, Emdin noticed them nodding and moving their mouths and heads.

“They were literally performing the songs they’d written for themselves,” Emdin said. “When you write a song to a beat, it’s almost like your heartbeat. You know it so well; you can conjure up your memories by reciting the lyrics.”

If songwriting isn’t in your repertoire, you’ll be glad to hear that just listening to music while studying can help with retention. “Music keeps both sides of the brain stimulated, which has been shown to increase focus and motivation,” explained Anita A. Paschall, MD, PhD, Medical School and Healthcare Admissions expert/director of Medical School and Healthcare Admissions at The Princeton Review.
 

‘Mind on a Permanent Vacation’

Paschall’s enthusiasm comes from personal experience. While preparing for her board exams, Jimmy Buffet’s catalog was her study soundtrack. “His songs stayed in my mind. I could hum along without having to think about it, so my brain was free to focus,” she recalled.

Because Paschall grew up listening to Buffet’s tunes, they also evoked relaxing moments from her earlier life, which she found comforting and uplifting. The combination helped make long, intense study sessions more pleasant. After all, when you’re “wasting away again in Margaritaville,” how can you feel stressed and despondent?

Alexander Remy Bonnel, MD, clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a physician at Pennsylvania Hospital, both in Philadelphia, found ways to incorporate both auditory and visual stimuli in his med school study routine. He listened to music while color-coding his notes to link both cues to the information. As with Paschall, these tactics helped reduce the monotony of learning reams of material.

That gave Bonnel an easy way to establish an important element for memory: Novelty.

“When you need to memorize so many things in a short amount of time, you’re trying to vary ways of internalizing information,” he observed. “You have a higher chance of retaining information if there’s something unique about it.”
 

Building Team Harmony

“Almost every single OR I rotated through in med school had music playing,” Bonnel also recalled. Furthermore, he noticed a pattern to the chosen songs: Regardless of their age, surgeons selected playlists of tunes that had been popular when they were in their 20s. Those golden oldies, from any era, could turn the OR team into a focused, cohesive unit.

Kyle McCormick, MD, a fifth-year resident in orthopedic surgery at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, has also noticed the ubiquity of background music in ORs. Her observation: Surgeons tend to choose universally popular, inoffensive songs, like tracks from Hall & Oates and Fleetwood Mac.

This meshes with the results of a joint survey of nearly 700 surgeons and other healthcare professionals conducted by Spotify and Figure 1 in 2021; 90% of the surgeons and surgical residents who responded said they listened to music in the OR. Rock and pop were the most popular genres, followed by classical, jazz, and then R&B.

Regardless of genre, music helped the surgical teams focus and feel less tense, the surgeons reported. But when training younger doctors, managing complications, or performing during critical points in surgery, many said they’d lower the volume.

Outside the OR, music can also help foster connection between colleagues. For Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, adjunct professor at Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, playing guitar and piano has helped him connect with his staff. “I’ve played tunes at staff gatherings and recorded videos as encouragement during the emergency response for COVID-19,” he shared.

In his free time, Loh has also organized outings to his local pub’s weekly karaoke show for more than a decade. His goal: “Promote social cohesion and combat loneliness among my friend and social networks.”
 

Get Your Own Musical Boost

If all this sounds like music to your ears, here are some ways to try it yourself.

Find a study soundtrack. When choosing study music, follow Paschall’s lead and pick songs you know well so they’ll remain in the background. Also, compile a soundtrack you find pleasant and mood-boosting to help relieve the tedium of study and decrease stress.

Keep in mind that we all take in and process information differently, said Gotian. So background music during study sessions might not work for you. According to a 2017 study published in Frontiers in Psychology, it can be a distraction and impair learning for some. Do what works.

Get pumped with a “walkup song.” What songs make you feel like you could conquer the world? asked Emdin. Or what soundtrack would be playing if you were ascending a stage to accept an award or walking out to take the mound in the ninth inning? Those songs should be on what he calls your “superhero” or “walkup” playlist. His prescription: Tune in before you begin your workday or start a challenging procedure.

Paschall agrees and recommends her students and clients listen to music before sitting down for an exam. Forget reviewing flashcards for the nth time, she counseled. Putting on headphones (or earbuds) will put you in a “better headspace.”

Choose work and play playlists. As well as incorporating tunes in your clinic or hospital, music can help relieve stress at the end of the workday. “Medical culture can often be detrimental to doctors’ health,” said Sue, who credits music with helping him maintain equanimity.

Bonnel can relate. Practicing and performing with the Penn Medicine Symphony Orchestra offers him a sense of community and relief from the stress of modern life. “For 2 hours every Tuesday, I put my phone away and just play,” he said. “It’s nice to have those moments when I’m temporarily disconnected and can just focus on one thing: Playing.”
 

Scale Up Your Career

Years after med school graduation, Sue still recalls many of the tunes he wrote to help him remember information. When he sings a song in his head, he’ll get a refresher on pediatric developmental milestones, medication side effects, anatomical details, and more, which informs the treatment plans he devises for patients. To help other doctors reap these benefits, Sue created the website Tune Rx, a medical music study resource that includes many of the roughly 100 songs he’s written.

Emdin often discusses his musical strategies during talks on STEM education. Initially, people are skeptical, he said. But the idea quickly rings a bell for audience members. “They come up to me afterward to share anecdotes,” Emdin said. “If you have enough anecdotes, there’s a pattern. So let’s create a process. Let’s be intentional about using music as a learning strategy,” he urged.

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

“Because you know I’m all about that base, ‘bout that base, no acid.” 

Do those words sound familiar? That’s because they’re the lyrics to Meghan Trainor’s “All About That Bass,” slightly tweaked to function as a medical study tool.

Early in med school, J.C. Sue, DO, now a family medicine physician, refashioned the song’s words to help him prepare for a test on acid extruders and loaders. Sue’s version, “All About That Base,” contained his lecture notes. During the exam, he found himself mentally singing his parody and easily recalling the information. Plus, the approach made cramming a lot more palatable.

Sound silly? It’s not. Sue’s approach is backed up by science. A significant body of research has illuminated the positive association between music and memory. And the benefits last. Recently, a 2024 study from Canada suggested that musical memory doesn’t decrease with age. And a 2023 study revealed music was a better cue than food for helping both young and older adults recall autobiographical memories.

Inspired by his success, Sue gave popular songs a medical spin throughout his medical training. “There’s no rule that says studying must be boring, tedious, or torturous,” Sue said. “If you can make it fun, why not?”

Sue isn’t alone. Many physicians say that writing songs, listening to music, or playing instruments improves their focus, energy, and work performance, along with their confidence and well-being.

Why does music work so well?
 

Tune Your Brain to Work With Tunes

Remember learning your ABCs to the tune of “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star?” (Or ask any Gen X person about Schoolhouse Rock.)

In the classroom, music is an established tool for teaching kids, said Ruth Gotian, EdD, MS, chief learning officer and associate professor of education in anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. But she said musical strategies make studying easier for adults, too, no matter how complex the material.

Christopher Emdin, PhD, Maxine Greene chair and professor of science education at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, shares Gotian’s view. When teaching science, engineering, technology, and mathematics (STEM) subjects to high school kids, he challenged them to write raps about the new concepts.

That’s when he saw visible results: As his students took exams, Emdin noticed them nodding and moving their mouths and heads.

“They were literally performing the songs they’d written for themselves,” Emdin said. “When you write a song to a beat, it’s almost like your heartbeat. You know it so well; you can conjure up your memories by reciting the lyrics.”

If songwriting isn’t in your repertoire, you’ll be glad to hear that just listening to music while studying can help with retention. “Music keeps both sides of the brain stimulated, which has been shown to increase focus and motivation,” explained Anita A. Paschall, MD, PhD, Medical School and Healthcare Admissions expert/director of Medical School and Healthcare Admissions at The Princeton Review.
 

‘Mind on a Permanent Vacation’

Paschall’s enthusiasm comes from personal experience. While preparing for her board exams, Jimmy Buffet’s catalog was her study soundtrack. “His songs stayed in my mind. I could hum along without having to think about it, so my brain was free to focus,” she recalled.

Because Paschall grew up listening to Buffet’s tunes, they also evoked relaxing moments from her earlier life, which she found comforting and uplifting. The combination helped make long, intense study sessions more pleasant. After all, when you’re “wasting away again in Margaritaville,” how can you feel stressed and despondent?

Alexander Remy Bonnel, MD, clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a physician at Pennsylvania Hospital, both in Philadelphia, found ways to incorporate both auditory and visual stimuli in his med school study routine. He listened to music while color-coding his notes to link both cues to the information. As with Paschall, these tactics helped reduce the monotony of learning reams of material.

That gave Bonnel an easy way to establish an important element for memory: Novelty.

“When you need to memorize so many things in a short amount of time, you’re trying to vary ways of internalizing information,” he observed. “You have a higher chance of retaining information if there’s something unique about it.”
 

Building Team Harmony

“Almost every single OR I rotated through in med school had music playing,” Bonnel also recalled. Furthermore, he noticed a pattern to the chosen songs: Regardless of their age, surgeons selected playlists of tunes that had been popular when they were in their 20s. Those golden oldies, from any era, could turn the OR team into a focused, cohesive unit.

Kyle McCormick, MD, a fifth-year resident in orthopedic surgery at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, has also noticed the ubiquity of background music in ORs. Her observation: Surgeons tend to choose universally popular, inoffensive songs, like tracks from Hall & Oates and Fleetwood Mac.

This meshes with the results of a joint survey of nearly 700 surgeons and other healthcare professionals conducted by Spotify and Figure 1 in 2021; 90% of the surgeons and surgical residents who responded said they listened to music in the OR. Rock and pop were the most popular genres, followed by classical, jazz, and then R&B.

Regardless of genre, music helped the surgical teams focus and feel less tense, the surgeons reported. But when training younger doctors, managing complications, or performing during critical points in surgery, many said they’d lower the volume.

Outside the OR, music can also help foster connection between colleagues. For Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, adjunct professor at Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, playing guitar and piano has helped him connect with his staff. “I’ve played tunes at staff gatherings and recorded videos as encouragement during the emergency response for COVID-19,” he shared.

In his free time, Loh has also organized outings to his local pub’s weekly karaoke show for more than a decade. His goal: “Promote social cohesion and combat loneliness among my friend and social networks.”
 

Get Your Own Musical Boost

If all this sounds like music to your ears, here are some ways to try it yourself.

Find a study soundtrack. When choosing study music, follow Paschall’s lead and pick songs you know well so they’ll remain in the background. Also, compile a soundtrack you find pleasant and mood-boosting to help relieve the tedium of study and decrease stress.

Keep in mind that we all take in and process information differently, said Gotian. So background music during study sessions might not work for you. According to a 2017 study published in Frontiers in Psychology, it can be a distraction and impair learning for some. Do what works.

Get pumped with a “walkup song.” What songs make you feel like you could conquer the world? asked Emdin. Or what soundtrack would be playing if you were ascending a stage to accept an award or walking out to take the mound in the ninth inning? Those songs should be on what he calls your “superhero” or “walkup” playlist. His prescription: Tune in before you begin your workday or start a challenging procedure.

Paschall agrees and recommends her students and clients listen to music before sitting down for an exam. Forget reviewing flashcards for the nth time, she counseled. Putting on headphones (or earbuds) will put you in a “better headspace.”

Choose work and play playlists. As well as incorporating tunes in your clinic or hospital, music can help relieve stress at the end of the workday. “Medical culture can often be detrimental to doctors’ health,” said Sue, who credits music with helping him maintain equanimity.

Bonnel can relate. Practicing and performing with the Penn Medicine Symphony Orchestra offers him a sense of community and relief from the stress of modern life. “For 2 hours every Tuesday, I put my phone away and just play,” he said. “It’s nice to have those moments when I’m temporarily disconnected and can just focus on one thing: Playing.”
 

Scale Up Your Career

Years after med school graduation, Sue still recalls many of the tunes he wrote to help him remember information. When he sings a song in his head, he’ll get a refresher on pediatric developmental milestones, medication side effects, anatomical details, and more, which informs the treatment plans he devises for patients. To help other doctors reap these benefits, Sue created the website Tune Rx, a medical music study resource that includes many of the roughly 100 songs he’s written.

Emdin often discusses his musical strategies during talks on STEM education. Initially, people are skeptical, he said. But the idea quickly rings a bell for audience members. “They come up to me afterward to share anecdotes,” Emdin said. “If you have enough anecdotes, there’s a pattern. So let’s create a process. Let’s be intentional about using music as a learning strategy,” he urged.

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

“Because you know I’m all about that base, ‘bout that base, no acid.” 

Do those words sound familiar? That’s because they’re the lyrics to Meghan Trainor’s “All About That Bass,” slightly tweaked to function as a medical study tool.

Early in med school, J.C. Sue, DO, now a family medicine physician, refashioned the song’s words to help him prepare for a test on acid extruders and loaders. Sue’s version, “All About That Base,” contained his lecture notes. During the exam, he found himself mentally singing his parody and easily recalling the information. Plus, the approach made cramming a lot more palatable.

Sound silly? It’s not. Sue’s approach is backed up by science. A significant body of research has illuminated the positive association between music and memory. And the benefits last. Recently, a 2024 study from Canada suggested that musical memory doesn’t decrease with age. And a 2023 study revealed music was a better cue than food for helping both young and older adults recall autobiographical memories.

Inspired by his success, Sue gave popular songs a medical spin throughout his medical training. “There’s no rule that says studying must be boring, tedious, or torturous,” Sue said. “If you can make it fun, why not?”

Sue isn’t alone. Many physicians say that writing songs, listening to music, or playing instruments improves their focus, energy, and work performance, along with their confidence and well-being.

Why does music work so well?
 

Tune Your Brain to Work With Tunes

Remember learning your ABCs to the tune of “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star?” (Or ask any Gen X person about Schoolhouse Rock.)

In the classroom, music is an established tool for teaching kids, said Ruth Gotian, EdD, MS, chief learning officer and associate professor of education in anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. But she said musical strategies make studying easier for adults, too, no matter how complex the material.

Christopher Emdin, PhD, Maxine Greene chair and professor of science education at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, shares Gotian’s view. When teaching science, engineering, technology, and mathematics (STEM) subjects to high school kids, he challenged them to write raps about the new concepts.

That’s when he saw visible results: As his students took exams, Emdin noticed them nodding and moving their mouths and heads.

“They were literally performing the songs they’d written for themselves,” Emdin said. “When you write a song to a beat, it’s almost like your heartbeat. You know it so well; you can conjure up your memories by reciting the lyrics.”

If songwriting isn’t in your repertoire, you’ll be glad to hear that just listening to music while studying can help with retention. “Music keeps both sides of the brain stimulated, which has been shown to increase focus and motivation,” explained Anita A. Paschall, MD, PhD, Medical School and Healthcare Admissions expert/director of Medical School and Healthcare Admissions at The Princeton Review.
 

‘Mind on a Permanent Vacation’

Paschall’s enthusiasm comes from personal experience. While preparing for her board exams, Jimmy Buffet’s catalog was her study soundtrack. “His songs stayed in my mind. I could hum along without having to think about it, so my brain was free to focus,” she recalled.

Because Paschall grew up listening to Buffet’s tunes, they also evoked relaxing moments from her earlier life, which she found comforting and uplifting. The combination helped make long, intense study sessions more pleasant. After all, when you’re “wasting away again in Margaritaville,” how can you feel stressed and despondent?

Alexander Remy Bonnel, MD, clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a physician at Pennsylvania Hospital, both in Philadelphia, found ways to incorporate both auditory and visual stimuli in his med school study routine. He listened to music while color-coding his notes to link both cues to the information. As with Paschall, these tactics helped reduce the monotony of learning reams of material.

That gave Bonnel an easy way to establish an important element for memory: Novelty.

“When you need to memorize so many things in a short amount of time, you’re trying to vary ways of internalizing information,” he observed. “You have a higher chance of retaining information if there’s something unique about it.”
 

Building Team Harmony

“Almost every single OR I rotated through in med school had music playing,” Bonnel also recalled. Furthermore, he noticed a pattern to the chosen songs: Regardless of their age, surgeons selected playlists of tunes that had been popular when they were in their 20s. Those golden oldies, from any era, could turn the OR team into a focused, cohesive unit.

Kyle McCormick, MD, a fifth-year resident in orthopedic surgery at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, has also noticed the ubiquity of background music in ORs. Her observation: Surgeons tend to choose universally popular, inoffensive songs, like tracks from Hall & Oates and Fleetwood Mac.

This meshes with the results of a joint survey of nearly 700 surgeons and other healthcare professionals conducted by Spotify and Figure 1 in 2021; 90% of the surgeons and surgical residents who responded said they listened to music in the OR. Rock and pop were the most popular genres, followed by classical, jazz, and then R&B.

Regardless of genre, music helped the surgical teams focus and feel less tense, the surgeons reported. But when training younger doctors, managing complications, or performing during critical points in surgery, many said they’d lower the volume.

Outside the OR, music can also help foster connection between colleagues. For Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, adjunct professor at Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, playing guitar and piano has helped him connect with his staff. “I’ve played tunes at staff gatherings and recorded videos as encouragement during the emergency response for COVID-19,” he shared.

In his free time, Loh has also organized outings to his local pub’s weekly karaoke show for more than a decade. His goal: “Promote social cohesion and combat loneliness among my friend and social networks.”
 

Get Your Own Musical Boost

If all this sounds like music to your ears, here are some ways to try it yourself.

Find a study soundtrack. When choosing study music, follow Paschall’s lead and pick songs you know well so they’ll remain in the background. Also, compile a soundtrack you find pleasant and mood-boosting to help relieve the tedium of study and decrease stress.

Keep in mind that we all take in and process information differently, said Gotian. So background music during study sessions might not work for you. According to a 2017 study published in Frontiers in Psychology, it can be a distraction and impair learning for some. Do what works.

Get pumped with a “walkup song.” What songs make you feel like you could conquer the world? asked Emdin. Or what soundtrack would be playing if you were ascending a stage to accept an award or walking out to take the mound in the ninth inning? Those songs should be on what he calls your “superhero” or “walkup” playlist. His prescription: Tune in before you begin your workday or start a challenging procedure.

Paschall agrees and recommends her students and clients listen to music before sitting down for an exam. Forget reviewing flashcards for the nth time, she counseled. Putting on headphones (or earbuds) will put you in a “better headspace.”

Choose work and play playlists. As well as incorporating tunes in your clinic or hospital, music can help relieve stress at the end of the workday. “Medical culture can often be detrimental to doctors’ health,” said Sue, who credits music with helping him maintain equanimity.

Bonnel can relate. Practicing and performing with the Penn Medicine Symphony Orchestra offers him a sense of community and relief from the stress of modern life. “For 2 hours every Tuesday, I put my phone away and just play,” he said. “It’s nice to have those moments when I’m temporarily disconnected and can just focus on one thing: Playing.”
 

Scale Up Your Career

Years after med school graduation, Sue still recalls many of the tunes he wrote to help him remember information. When he sings a song in his head, he’ll get a refresher on pediatric developmental milestones, medication side effects, anatomical details, and more, which informs the treatment plans he devises for patients. To help other doctors reap these benefits, Sue created the website Tune Rx, a medical music study resource that includes many of the roughly 100 songs he’s written.

Emdin often discusses his musical strategies during talks on STEM education. Initially, people are skeptical, he said. But the idea quickly rings a bell for audience members. “They come up to me afterward to share anecdotes,” Emdin said. “If you have enough anecdotes, there’s a pattern. So let’s create a process. Let’s be intentional about using music as a learning strategy,” he urged.

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

TOPLINE:

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are associated with a reduced risk for recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and a history of cardiovascular events.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study using data from the Korean National Claims Database, including 413 patients diagnosed with cardiovascular events following a radiographic axSpA diagnosis.
• Of all patients, 75 received TNF inhibitors (mean age, 51.9 years; 92% men) and 338 did not receive TNF inhibitors (mean age, 60.7 years; 74.9% men).
• Patients were followed from the date of the first cardiovascular event to the date of recurrence, the last date with claims data, or up to December 2021.
• The study outcome was recurrent cardiovascular events that occurred within 28 days of the first incidence and included myocardial infarction and stroke.
• The effect of TNF inhibitor exposure on the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events was assessed using an inverse probability weighted Cox regression analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with radiographic axSpA was 32 per 1000 person-years.
• The incidence was 19 per 1000 person-years in the patients exposed to TNF inhibitors, whereas it was 36 per 1000 person-years in those not exposed to TNF inhibitors.
• Exposure to TNF inhibitors was associated with a 67% lower risk for recurrent cardiovascular events than non-exposure (P = .038).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data add to previous knowledge by providing more direct evidence that TNFi [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] could reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Oh Chan Kwon, MD, PhD, and Hye Sun Lee, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. It was published online on October 4, 2024, in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of data on certain cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, smoking, and lifestyle may have led to residual confounding. The patient count in the TNF inhibitor exposure group was not adequate to analyze each TNF inhibitor medication separately. The study included only Korean patients, limiting the generalizability to other ethnic populations. The number of recurrent stroke events was relatively small, making it infeasible to analyze myocardial infarction and stroke separately.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Yuhan Corporation as part of its “2023 Investigator Initiated Translation Research Program.” The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are associated with a reduced risk for recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and a history of cardiovascular events.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study using data from the Korean National Claims Database, including 413 patients diagnosed with cardiovascular events following a radiographic axSpA diagnosis.
• Of all patients, 75 received TNF inhibitors (mean age, 51.9 years; 92% men) and 338 did not receive TNF inhibitors (mean age, 60.7 years; 74.9% men).
• Patients were followed from the date of the first cardiovascular event to the date of recurrence, the last date with claims data, or up to December 2021.
• The study outcome was recurrent cardiovascular events that occurred within 28 days of the first incidence and included myocardial infarction and stroke.
• The effect of TNF inhibitor exposure on the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events was assessed using an inverse probability weighted Cox regression analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with radiographic axSpA was 32 per 1000 person-years.
• The incidence was 19 per 1000 person-years in the patients exposed to TNF inhibitors, whereas it was 36 per 1000 person-years in those not exposed to TNF inhibitors.
• Exposure to TNF inhibitors was associated with a 67% lower risk for recurrent cardiovascular events than non-exposure (P = .038).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data add to previous knowledge by providing more direct evidence that TNFi [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] could reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Oh Chan Kwon, MD, PhD, and Hye Sun Lee, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. It was published online on October 4, 2024, in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of data on certain cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, smoking, and lifestyle may have led to residual confounding. The patient count in the TNF inhibitor exposure group was not adequate to analyze each TNF inhibitor medication separately. The study included only Korean patients, limiting the generalizability to other ethnic populations. The number of recurrent stroke events was relatively small, making it infeasible to analyze myocardial infarction and stroke separately.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Yuhan Corporation as part of its “2023 Investigator Initiated Translation Research Program.” The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are associated with a reduced risk for recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and a history of cardiovascular events.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study using data from the Korean National Claims Database, including 413 patients diagnosed with cardiovascular events following a radiographic axSpA diagnosis.
• Of all patients, 75 received TNF inhibitors (mean age, 51.9 years; 92% men) and 338 did not receive TNF inhibitors (mean age, 60.7 years; 74.9% men).
• Patients were followed from the date of the first cardiovascular event to the date of recurrence, the last date with claims data, or up to December 2021.
• The study outcome was recurrent cardiovascular events that occurred within 28 days of the first incidence and included myocardial infarction and stroke.
• The effect of TNF inhibitor exposure on the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events was assessed using an inverse probability weighted Cox regression analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with radiographic axSpA was 32 per 1000 person-years.
• The incidence was 19 per 1000 person-years in the patients exposed to TNF inhibitors, whereas it was 36 per 1000 person-years in those not exposed to TNF inhibitors.
• Exposure to TNF inhibitors was associated with a 67% lower risk for recurrent cardiovascular events than non-exposure (P = .038).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data add to previous knowledge by providing more direct evidence that TNFi [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] could reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Oh Chan Kwon, MD, PhD, and Hye Sun Lee, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. It was published online on October 4, 2024, in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of data on certain cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, smoking, and lifestyle may have led to residual confounding. The patient count in the TNF inhibitor exposure group was not adequate to analyze each TNF inhibitor medication separately. The study included only Korean patients, limiting the generalizability to other ethnic populations. The number of recurrent stroke events was relatively small, making it infeasible to analyze myocardial infarction and stroke separately.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Yuhan Corporation as part of its “2023 Investigator Initiated Translation Research Program.” The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

Physicians shared their views on frequently discussed (and sometimes controversial) topics ranging from romances with patients to age-related competency tests in the latest report from Medscape Medical News.

The report captured data from over 1000 full- or part-time US physicians across more than 29 specialties who were surveyed over a 3-month period in 2024.

Responsibility toward their patients was a clear priority among the doctors surveyed.

While around 6 in 10 physicians said they would immediately discharge a patient who refused to follow their treatment recommendations, 8% said they would wait, and 31% indicated they would keep the patient.

Asked whether physicians should have to undergo competency testing at a certain age, 30% of respondents said yes vs 22% no, and 48% felt it depended on multiple factors.

Most doctors (91%) said they would not accept a gift of substantial monetary or sentimental value from a patient, adhering to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics.

Big gifts “may signal psychological issues, and it is not fair to patients who can’t afford big gifts, since they may encourage better care,” said Jason Doctor, PhD, a senior scholar at the USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics in Los Angeles, California. “It also taints the doctor-patient relationship, which should not involve large gifts of expectations of reciprocity.”

The vast majority of doctors said a romantic relationship with a patient still in their care was unacceptable, although 1% felt it would be OK, and 9% said, “it depends.”

When asked if they might withhold information about a patient’s condition if disclosure could do more harm than good, the majority of doctors said no. But 38% said it depended on the situation.

“This is how the profession and public expectations are evolving from the old paternalistic approach,” said Peter Angood, MD, president and CEO of the American Association for Physician Leadership.

Meanwhile, most doctors (62%) said that an annual flu shot should be mandatory for physicians who see patients. And a substantial majority of doctors surveyed agreed that taking care of their physical and mental health amounts to an ethical duty.

Around three in four physicians surveyed said felt periodic bias training was necessary for doctors.

“We all need refreshers about our own bias and how to manage it,” one respondent said. But another physician said, “I think we all know what appropriate behavior is and don’t need to add yet another CME course, ugh.”

Roughly equal shares of doctors surveyed felt some obligation to take at least some Medicaid patients or felt no societal obligation. The remaining 18% were willing to treat Medicaid patients once states streamlined the rules and improved reimbursements.

And finally, nearly all the survey respondents said physicians should advise patients on the risks of marijuana, notwithstanding the number of states and localities that recently have legalized pot or cannabis products.
 

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

Physicians shared their views on frequently discussed (and sometimes controversial) topics ranging from romances with patients to age-related competency tests in the latest report from Medscape Medical News.

The report captured data from over 1000 full- or part-time US physicians across more than 29 specialties who were surveyed over a 3-month period in 2024.

Responsibility toward their patients was a clear priority among the doctors surveyed.

While around 6 in 10 physicians said they would immediately discharge a patient who refused to follow their treatment recommendations, 8% said they would wait, and 31% indicated they would keep the patient.

Asked whether physicians should have to undergo competency testing at a certain age, 30% of respondents said yes vs 22% no, and 48% felt it depended on multiple factors.

Most doctors (91%) said they would not accept a gift of substantial monetary or sentimental value from a patient, adhering to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics.

Big gifts “may signal psychological issues, and it is not fair to patients who can’t afford big gifts, since they may encourage better care,” said Jason Doctor, PhD, a senior scholar at the USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics in Los Angeles, California. “It also taints the doctor-patient relationship, which should not involve large gifts of expectations of reciprocity.”

The vast majority of doctors said a romantic relationship with a patient still in their care was unacceptable, although 1% felt it would be OK, and 9% said, “it depends.”

When asked if they might withhold information about a patient’s condition if disclosure could do more harm than good, the majority of doctors said no. But 38% said it depended on the situation.

“This is how the profession and public expectations are evolving from the old paternalistic approach,” said Peter Angood, MD, president and CEO of the American Association for Physician Leadership.

Meanwhile, most doctors (62%) said that an annual flu shot should be mandatory for physicians who see patients. And a substantial majority of doctors surveyed agreed that taking care of their physical and mental health amounts to an ethical duty.

Around three in four physicians surveyed said felt periodic bias training was necessary for doctors.

“We all need refreshers about our own bias and how to manage it,” one respondent said. But another physician said, “I think we all know what appropriate behavior is and don’t need to add yet another CME course, ugh.”

Roughly equal shares of doctors surveyed felt some obligation to take at least some Medicaid patients or felt no societal obligation. The remaining 18% were willing to treat Medicaid patients once states streamlined the rules and improved reimbursements.

And finally, nearly all the survey respondents said physicians should advise patients on the risks of marijuana, notwithstanding the number of states and localities that recently have legalized pot or cannabis products.
 

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

Physicians shared their views on frequently discussed (and sometimes controversial) topics ranging from romances with patients to age-related competency tests in the latest report from Medscape Medical News.

The report captured data from over 1000 full- or part-time US physicians across more than 29 specialties who were surveyed over a 3-month period in 2024.

Responsibility toward their patients was a clear priority among the doctors surveyed.

While around 6 in 10 physicians said they would immediately discharge a patient who refused to follow their treatment recommendations, 8% said they would wait, and 31% indicated they would keep the patient.

Asked whether physicians should have to undergo competency testing at a certain age, 30% of respondents said yes vs 22% no, and 48% felt it depended on multiple factors.

Most doctors (91%) said they would not accept a gift of substantial monetary or sentimental value from a patient, adhering to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics.

Big gifts “may signal psychological issues, and it is not fair to patients who can’t afford big gifts, since they may encourage better care,” said Jason Doctor, PhD, a senior scholar at the USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics in Los Angeles, California. “It also taints the doctor-patient relationship, which should not involve large gifts of expectations of reciprocity.”

The vast majority of doctors said a romantic relationship with a patient still in their care was unacceptable, although 1% felt it would be OK, and 9% said, “it depends.”

When asked if they might withhold information about a patient’s condition if disclosure could do more harm than good, the majority of doctors said no. But 38% said it depended on the situation.

“This is how the profession and public expectations are evolving from the old paternalistic approach,” said Peter Angood, MD, president and CEO of the American Association for Physician Leadership.

Meanwhile, most doctors (62%) said that an annual flu shot should be mandatory for physicians who see patients. And a substantial majority of doctors surveyed agreed that taking care of their physical and mental health amounts to an ethical duty.

Around three in four physicians surveyed said felt periodic bias training was necessary for doctors.

“We all need refreshers about our own bias and how to manage it,” one respondent said. But another physician said, “I think we all know what appropriate behavior is and don’t need to add yet another CME course, ugh.”

Roughly equal shares of doctors surveyed felt some obligation to take at least some Medicaid patients or felt no societal obligation. The remaining 18% were willing to treat Medicaid patients once states streamlined the rules and improved reimbursements.

And finally, nearly all the survey respondents said physicians should advise patients on the risks of marijuana, notwithstanding the number of states and localities that recently have legalized pot or cannabis products.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Genetic predisposition to gout, unfavorable lifestyle habits, and poor metabolic health are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, adherence to a healthy lifestyle can reduce this risk by up to 62%, even in individuals with high genetic risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers investigated the association between genetic predisposition to gout, combined with lifestyle habits, and the risk for CVD in two diverse prospective cohorts from different ancestral backgrounds.
• They analyzed the data of 224,689 participants of European descent from the UK Biobank (mean age, 57.0 years; 56.1% women) and 50,364 participants of East Asian descent from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES; mean age, 53.7 years; 66.0% women).
• The genetic predisposition to gout was evaluated using a polygenic risk score (PRS) derived from a metagenome-wide association study, and the participants were categorized into low, intermediate, and high genetic risk groups based on their PRS for gout.
• A favorable lifestyle was defined as having ≥ 3 healthy lifestyle factors, and 0-1 metabolic syndrome factor defined the ideal metabolic health status.
• The incident CVD risk was evaluated according to genetic risk, lifestyle habits, and metabolic syndrome.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals in the high genetic risk group had a higher risk for CVD than those in the low genetic risk group in both the UK Biobank (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; P < .001) and KoGES (aHR, 1.31; P = .024) cohorts.
• In the UK Biobank cohort, individuals with a high genetic risk for gout and unfavorable lifestyle choices had a 1.99 times higher risk for incident CVD than those with low genetic risk (aHR, 1.99; P < .001); similar outcomes were observed in the KoGES cohort.
• Similarly, individuals with a high genetic risk for gout and poor metabolic health in the UK Biobank cohort had a 2.16 times higher risk for CVD than those with low genetic risk (aHR, 2.16; P < .001 for both); outcomes were no different in the KoGES cohort.
• Improving metabolic health and adhering to a healthy lifestyle reduced the risk for CVD by 62% in individuals with high genetic risk and by 46% in those with low genetic risk (P < .001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“PRS for gout can be used for preventing not only gout but also CVD. It is possible to identify individuals with high genetic risk for gout and strongly recommend modifying lifestyle habits. Weight reduction, smoking cessation, regular exercise, and eating healthy food are effective strategies to prevent gout and CVD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ki Won Moon, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea, and SangHyuk Jung, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and was published online on October 8, 2024, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The definitions of lifestyle and metabolic syndrome were different in each cohort, which may have affected the findings. Data on lifestyle behaviors and metabolic health statuses were collected at enrollment, but these variables may have changed during the follow-up period, which potentially introduced bias into the results. This study was not able to establish causality between genetic predisposition to gout and the incident risk for CVD.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Genetic predisposition to gout, unfavorable lifestyle habits, and poor metabolic health are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, adherence to a healthy lifestyle can reduce this risk by up to 62%, even in individuals with high genetic risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers investigated the association between genetic predisposition to gout, combined with lifestyle habits, and the risk for CVD in two diverse prospective cohorts from different ancestral backgrounds.
• They analyzed the data of 224,689 participants of European descent from the UK Biobank (mean age, 57.0 years; 56.1% women) and 50,364 participants of East Asian descent from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES; mean age, 53.7 years; 66.0% women).
• The genetic predisposition to gout was evaluated using a polygenic risk score (PRS) derived from a metagenome-wide association study, and the participants were categorized into low, intermediate, and high genetic risk groups based on their PRS for gout.
• A favorable lifestyle was defined as having ≥ 3 healthy lifestyle factors, and 0-1 metabolic syndrome factor defined the ideal metabolic health status.
• The incident CVD risk was evaluated according to genetic risk, lifestyle habits, and metabolic syndrome.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals in the high genetic risk group had a higher risk for CVD than those in the low genetic risk group in both the UK Biobank (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; P < .001) and KoGES (aHR, 1.31; P = .024) cohorts.
• In the UK Biobank cohort, individuals with a high genetic risk for gout and unfavorable lifestyle choices had a 1.99 times higher risk for incident CVD than those with low genetic risk (aHR, 1.99; P < .001); similar outcomes were observed in the KoGES cohort.
• Similarly, individuals with a high genetic risk for gout and poor metabolic health in the UK Biobank cohort had a 2.16 times higher risk for CVD than those with low genetic risk (aHR, 2.16; P < .001 for both); outcomes were no different in the KoGES cohort.
• Improving metabolic health and adhering to a healthy lifestyle reduced the risk for CVD by 62% in individuals with high genetic risk and by 46% in those with low genetic risk (P < .001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“PRS for gout can be used for preventing not only gout but also CVD. It is possible to identify individuals with high genetic risk for gout and strongly recommend modifying lifestyle habits. Weight reduction, smoking cessation, regular exercise, and eating healthy food are effective strategies to prevent gout and CVD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ki Won Moon, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea, and SangHyuk Jung, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and was published online on October 8, 2024, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The definitions of lifestyle and metabolic syndrome were different in each cohort, which may have affected the findings. Data on lifestyle behaviors and metabolic health statuses were collected at enrollment, but these variables may have changed during the follow-up period, which potentially introduced bias into the results. This study was not able to establish causality between genetic predisposition to gout and the incident risk for CVD.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Genetic predisposition to gout, unfavorable lifestyle habits, and poor metabolic health are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, adherence to a healthy lifestyle can reduce this risk by up to 62%, even in individuals with high genetic risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers investigated the association between genetic predisposition to gout, combined with lifestyle habits, and the risk for CVD in two diverse prospective cohorts from different ancestral backgrounds.
• They analyzed the data of 224,689 participants of European descent from the UK Biobank (mean age, 57.0 years; 56.1% women) and 50,364 participants of East Asian descent from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES; mean age, 53.7 years; 66.0% women).
• The genetic predisposition to gout was evaluated using a polygenic risk score (PRS) derived from a metagenome-wide association study, and the participants were categorized into low, intermediate, and high genetic risk groups based on their PRS for gout.
• A favorable lifestyle was defined as having ≥ 3 healthy lifestyle factors, and 0-1 metabolic syndrome factor defined the ideal metabolic health status.
• The incident CVD risk was evaluated according to genetic risk, lifestyle habits, and metabolic syndrome.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals in the high genetic risk group had a higher risk for CVD than those in the low genetic risk group in both the UK Biobank (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; P < .001) and KoGES (aHR, 1.31; P = .024) cohorts.
• In the UK Biobank cohort, individuals with a high genetic risk for gout and unfavorable lifestyle choices had a 1.99 times higher risk for incident CVD than those with low genetic risk (aHR, 1.99; P < .001); similar outcomes were observed in the KoGES cohort.
• Similarly, individuals with a high genetic risk for gout and poor metabolic health in the UK Biobank cohort had a 2.16 times higher risk for CVD than those with low genetic risk (aHR, 2.16; P < .001 for both); outcomes were no different in the KoGES cohort.
• Improving metabolic health and adhering to a healthy lifestyle reduced the risk for CVD by 62% in individuals with high genetic risk and by 46% in those with low genetic risk (P < .001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“PRS for gout can be used for preventing not only gout but also CVD. It is possible to identify individuals with high genetic risk for gout and strongly recommend modifying lifestyle habits. Weight reduction, smoking cessation, regular exercise, and eating healthy food are effective strategies to prevent gout and CVD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ki Won Moon, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea, and SangHyuk Jung, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and was published online on October 8, 2024, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The definitions of lifestyle and metabolic syndrome were different in each cohort, which may have affected the findings. Data on lifestyle behaviors and metabolic health statuses were collected at enrollment, but these variables may have changed during the follow-up period, which potentially introduced bias into the results. This study was not able to establish causality between genetic predisposition to gout and the incident risk for CVD.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

TOPLINE:

Both low and high levels of maternal 25-hydroxy [25(OH)] vitamin D are linked to an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with levels of 40-59 ng/mL being associated with the lowest risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 260 pregnancies in the Hopkins Lupus Cohort to examine the association between 25(OH) vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with SLE.
• The participants were required to have serum vitamin D levels measured during pregnancy and pregnancy-related outcomes data.
• The 25(OH) vitamin D levels were measured at visits every 6 weeks, and the participants were divided into six subgroups on the basis of the mean 25(OH) vitamin D levels: < 20 ng/dL, 20-29 ng/dL, 30-39 ng/dL, 40-49 ng/dL, 50-59 ng/dL, and ≥ 60 ng/dL.
• The adverse pregnancy outcomes included miscarriage, preterm delivery, and restricted intrauterine growth of the fetus.
• This study used a time-to-event analysis to assess the association between time-varying 25(OH) vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adverse pregnancy outcomes were observed in 45.3% of pregnancies; the risks for miscarriage and preterm delivery were significantly different across the six subgroups with varying vitamin D levels (P = .0045 and P = .0007, respectively).
• A U-shaped curve association was observed between vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes, with the highest risk seen in patients with the lowest or highest levels of vitamin D during pregnancy, while the lowest risk was seen in those with vitamin D levels between 40 and 59 ng/mL.
• Low 25(OH) vitamin D levels during the second trimester resulted in premature delivery in 9 out of 10 pregnancies; however, a relationship between vitamin D levels in the first trimester and pregnancy outcomes was not observed.
• The time-to-event analysis showed that the U-shaped association between vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes was still observed even after accounting for lupus disease activity; however, the elevated risk seen in individuals with the highest levels of vitamin D was no longer statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“We recommend monitoring of maternal serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels throughout SLE pregnancies and supplementing patients with vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency, aiming for 25(OH) vitamin D range of 40-59 ng/mL. Over supplementation should be avoided,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nima Madanchi, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and was published online on September 23, 2024, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study included only clinically identified pregnancies, potentially missing very early miscarriages. It also could not adjust for parity due to the unknown parity of the index pregnancy.

DISCLOSURES:

This Hopkins Lupus Cohort was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Both low and high levels of maternal 25-hydroxy [25(OH)] vitamin D are linked to an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with levels of 40-59 ng/mL being associated with the lowest risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 260 pregnancies in the Hopkins Lupus Cohort to examine the association between 25(OH) vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with SLE.
• The participants were required to have serum vitamin D levels measured during pregnancy and pregnancy-related outcomes data.
• The 25(OH) vitamin D levels were measured at visits every 6 weeks, and the participants were divided into six subgroups on the basis of the mean 25(OH) vitamin D levels: < 20 ng/dL, 20-29 ng/dL, 30-39 ng/dL, 40-49 ng/dL, 50-59 ng/dL, and ≥ 60 ng/dL.
• The adverse pregnancy outcomes included miscarriage, preterm delivery, and restricted intrauterine growth of the fetus.
• This study used a time-to-event analysis to assess the association between time-varying 25(OH) vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adverse pregnancy outcomes were observed in 45.3% of pregnancies; the risks for miscarriage and preterm delivery were significantly different across the six subgroups with varying vitamin D levels (P = .0045 and P = .0007, respectively).
• A U-shaped curve association was observed between vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes, with the highest risk seen in patients with the lowest or highest levels of vitamin D during pregnancy, while the lowest risk was seen in those with vitamin D levels between 40 and 59 ng/mL.
• Low 25(OH) vitamin D levels during the second trimester resulted in premature delivery in 9 out of 10 pregnancies; however, a relationship between vitamin D levels in the first trimester and pregnancy outcomes was not observed.
• The time-to-event analysis showed that the U-shaped association between vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes was still observed even after accounting for lupus disease activity; however, the elevated risk seen in individuals with the highest levels of vitamin D was no longer statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“We recommend monitoring of maternal serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels throughout SLE pregnancies and supplementing patients with vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency, aiming for 25(OH) vitamin D range of 40-59 ng/mL. Over supplementation should be avoided,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nima Madanchi, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and was published online on September 23, 2024, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study included only clinically identified pregnancies, potentially missing very early miscarriages. It also could not adjust for parity due to the unknown parity of the index pregnancy.

DISCLOSURES:

This Hopkins Lupus Cohort was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Both low and high levels of maternal 25-hydroxy [25(OH)] vitamin D are linked to an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with levels of 40-59 ng/mL being associated with the lowest risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 260 pregnancies in the Hopkins Lupus Cohort to examine the association between 25(OH) vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with SLE.
• The participants were required to have serum vitamin D levels measured during pregnancy and pregnancy-related outcomes data.
• The 25(OH) vitamin D levels were measured at visits every 6 weeks, and the participants were divided into six subgroups on the basis of the mean 25(OH) vitamin D levels: < 20 ng/dL, 20-29 ng/dL, 30-39 ng/dL, 40-49 ng/dL, 50-59 ng/dL, and ≥ 60 ng/dL.
• The adverse pregnancy outcomes included miscarriage, preterm delivery, and restricted intrauterine growth of the fetus.
• This study used a time-to-event analysis to assess the association between time-varying 25(OH) vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adverse pregnancy outcomes were observed in 45.3% of pregnancies; the risks for miscarriage and preterm delivery were significantly different across the six subgroups with varying vitamin D levels (P = .0045 and P = .0007, respectively).
• A U-shaped curve association was observed between vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes, with the highest risk seen in patients with the lowest or highest levels of vitamin D during pregnancy, while the lowest risk was seen in those with vitamin D levels between 40 and 59 ng/mL.
• Low 25(OH) vitamin D levels during the second trimester resulted in premature delivery in 9 out of 10 pregnancies; however, a relationship between vitamin D levels in the first trimester and pregnancy outcomes was not observed.
• The time-to-event analysis showed that the U-shaped association between vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes was still observed even after accounting for lupus disease activity; however, the elevated risk seen in individuals with the highest levels of vitamin D was no longer statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“We recommend monitoring of maternal serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels throughout SLE pregnancies and supplementing patients with vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency, aiming for 25(OH) vitamin D range of 40-59 ng/mL. Over supplementation should be avoided,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nima Madanchi, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and was published online on September 23, 2024, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between vitamin D levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study included only clinically identified pregnancies, potentially missing very early miscarriages. It also could not adjust for parity due to the unknown parity of the index pregnancy.

DISCLOSURES:

This Hopkins Lupus Cohort was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

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