User login
Outpatient CAR T: Safe, Effective, Accessible
In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi).
Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment.
“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.”
Great Outcomes, Low Access
Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”
Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”
As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.
“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”
A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications.
Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle
Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview.
“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.
Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.
“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”
A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted.
Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community
Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.
The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.
As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial
As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized.
Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.
“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”
In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”
And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting.
Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care
Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”
Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.
Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
What’s Next for Access to Therapy?
Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said.
Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”
These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”
Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”
Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi).
Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment.
“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.”
Great Outcomes, Low Access
Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”
Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”
As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.
“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”
A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications.
Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle
Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview.
“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.
Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.
“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”
A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted.
Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community
Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.
The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.
As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial
As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized.
Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.
“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”
In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”
And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting.
Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care
Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”
Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.
Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
What’s Next for Access to Therapy?
Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said.
Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”
These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”
Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”
Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi).
Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment.
“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.”
Great Outcomes, Low Access
Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”
Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”
As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.
“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”
A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications.
Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle
Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview.
“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.
Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.
“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”
A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted.
Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community
Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.
The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.
As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial
As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized.
Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.
“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”
In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”
And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting.
Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care
Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”
Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.
Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
What’s Next for Access to Therapy?
Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said.
Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”
These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”
Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”
Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
RA Prevention: A Decade of Trials Provides Insights on What’s to Come
With the discovery of autoantibodies and other risk factors for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), researchers developed clinical trials to see whether the disease can be prevented entirely. In the past 10 years, a number of these trials have concluded, with variable results.
While some trials demonstrated no effect at all, others showed that medical intervention can delay the onset of disease in certain populations and even reduce the rates of progression to RA. These completed trials also offer researchers the chance to identify opportunities to improve RA prevention trials moving forward.
“We’re looking at all that data and trying to figure out what the next step is going to be,” said Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and a rheumatologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.
Key lessons include the need for improved risk stratification tools and better understanding of RA pathogenesis, he said.
The Research So Far
All RA prevention trials except for one have been completed and/or published within the past decade, bringing valuable insights to the field. (See chart below.)
Atorvastatin (STAPRA) and hydroxychloroquine (StopRA) proved ineffective in preventing the onset of RA, and both trials were stopped early. Rituximab and methotrexate (MTX) both delayed the onset of RA, but the effect disappeared by the end of the follow-up periods.
However, the 2-year results from the TREAT EARLIER trial showed that compared with patients given placebo, those given MTX showed improved MRI-detected joint inflammation, physical functioning, and reported symptoms.
The 4-year analysis of the trial further risk stratified participants and found that MTX showed a preventive effect in anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–negative participants at an increased risk for RA.
Abatacept also showed promise in preventing RA in two separate trials. In the ARIAA trial, compared with placebo, 6 months of treatment with abatacept reduced MRI inflammation and symptoms and lowered the rates of progression to RA. This treatment effect lessened during the 1-year follow-up period, but the difference between the two groups was still significant at 18 months.
In the APIPPRA trial, 12 months of treatment with abatacept improved subclinical inflammation and quality-of-life measures in participants and reduced the rates of progression to RA through another 12 months of observation. However, during this post-treatment follow-up period, the treatment effect began to diminish.
While there have been some promising findings — not only in disease prevention but also in disease modification — these studies all looked at different patient groups, noted Kulveer Mankia, MA, DM, an associate professor and consulting rheumatologist at the Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds in England.
“You have disparate, different inclusion criteria in different studies, all of which take years to complete,” he said. For example, while the TREAT EARLIER trial recruited patients with joint pain and subclinical joint inflammation via MRI, regardless of autoantibody status, the APIPPRA trial enrolled patients that were both ACPA+ and rheumatoid factor (RF)+ with joint pain.
“You’re left extrapolating as to whether [these interventions] will work in different at-risk populations,” he said.
Even with specific inclusion criteria in each study, there can still be heterogeneity in risk within a study group, Deane said. In the TREAT EARLIER study, 18%-20% of participants ultimately developed RA over the study period, which is lower than expected.
“While it seemed like a pretty high-risk group, it wasn’t as high risk as we thought,” he said, “and that’s why we’ve gone back to the drawing board.”
Risk Stratification Efforts
There are now two ongoing joint efforts by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) to define these populations and “bring some consensus to the field,” Mankia said.
The first aims to create a unanimous risk stratification tool for future RA prevention studies. The proposed system, devised for individuals with new joint symptoms who are at a risk for RA, was presented at the EULAR 2024 annual meeting and will be further discussed at the upcoming ACR 2024 annual meeting in Washington, DC.
The system uses a point system based on six criteria — three lab tests and three criteria commonly assessed in clinical practice:
- Morning stiffness
- Patient-reported joint swelling
- Difficulty making a fist
- Increased C-reactive protein
- RF positivity
- ACPA positivity
These criteria were picked so that the risk stratification tool can be used without imaging; however, the inclusion of MRI can further refine the score.
The ACR-EULAR task force that created the tool has emphasized that this criterion is specifically designed for research purposes and should not be used in clinical practice. Using this stratification tool should allow future clinical studies to group patients by similar risk, Deane said.
“Not that all studies have to look at exactly the same people, but each study should have similar risk stratification,” he said.
The second ACR-EULAR joint effort is taking a population-based approach to risk stratification, Deane said, to better predict RA risk in individuals without common symptoms like joint pain.
The aim is to create something analogous to the Framingham Risk Score in predicting cardiovascular disease, in which simple variables like total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and smoking status can be used to calculate an individual’s 10-year risk for CVD, Deane explained.
The second approach could also identify patients earlier in the progression to RA, which may be easier to treat than later stages of disease.
Understanding RA Origins
However, treating an earlier stage of disease might require a different approach. Up to this point, medical interventions for RA prevention used drugs approved to treat RA, but inventions during the pre-RA stage — before any joint symptoms appear — might require targeting different immunologic pathways.
“The general concept is if there is a pre-RA stage when joints are not involved, that means all the immunologic abnormalities are probably happening somewhere else in the body,” he said. “The big question is: Where is that, and how exactly is that happening?”
One theory is that RA begins to develop in mucosal sites, such as the intestines or lungs, before it involves synovial joints.
“In the absence of resolution, these localized immune processes transition into a systemic process that targets the joints, either by direct effects of microbiota, molecular mimicry, and/or immune amplification,” wrote Deane and coauthors in a recent review article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This, in turn, leads to inappropriate engagement of a range of effector mechanisms in both synovium and periarticular sites.”
Following this logic, the progression of the at-risk stage of RA could be considered a continuum along which there are multiple possible points for intervention. It’s also probable that the disease can develop through multiple pathways, Deane said.
“If you look at all the people who get rheumatoid arthritis, there’s probably no way those could have the same exact pathways,” he said. “There’s probably going to be different endotypes and understanding that is going to help us prevent disease in a better way.”
Looking Forward
Beyond improving risk stratification and understanding RA pathogenesis, researchers are also considering novel therapeutic approaches for future trials. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists could be worth exploring in RA prevention and treatment, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
These drugs — initially developed for diabetes — have already shown anti-inflammatory effects, and one study suggested that GLP-1s lowered the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Obesity is a known risk factor for RA, so weight loss aided by GLP-1 drugs could also help reduce risk in certain patients. Clinical trials are needed to explore GLP-1s for both RA prevention and treatment, he said.
While prevention trials up to this point have used one-time, time-limited interventions, longer durations of medication or multiple rounds of therapy may be more efficacious. Even for trials that demonstrated the intervention arms had less progression to RA, this effect diminished once participants stopped the medication. In the ARIAA and APIPPRA trials using abatacept, “it wasn’t like we hit a reset button and [patients] just permanently now did not get rheumatoid arthritis,” Deane said, suggesting that alternative approaches should be explored.
“Future studies need to look at potentially longer doses of drug or lower doses of drug, or some combination that might be effective,” he said.
Deane received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thermo Fisher, and Werfen and grant funding from Janssen Research and Development and Gilead Sciences. Mankia received grant support from Gilead, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Serac Life Sciences and honoraria or consultant fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, Galapagos, DeepCure, Serac Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, and Zura Bio. Sparks received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sonoma Biotherapeutics. He consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Merck, Mustang, Optum, Pfizer, ReCor Medical, Sana, Sobi, and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the discovery of autoantibodies and other risk factors for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), researchers developed clinical trials to see whether the disease can be prevented entirely. In the past 10 years, a number of these trials have concluded, with variable results.
While some trials demonstrated no effect at all, others showed that medical intervention can delay the onset of disease in certain populations and even reduce the rates of progression to RA. These completed trials also offer researchers the chance to identify opportunities to improve RA prevention trials moving forward.
“We’re looking at all that data and trying to figure out what the next step is going to be,” said Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and a rheumatologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.
Key lessons include the need for improved risk stratification tools and better understanding of RA pathogenesis, he said.
The Research So Far
All RA prevention trials except for one have been completed and/or published within the past decade, bringing valuable insights to the field. (See chart below.)
Atorvastatin (STAPRA) and hydroxychloroquine (StopRA) proved ineffective in preventing the onset of RA, and both trials were stopped early. Rituximab and methotrexate (MTX) both delayed the onset of RA, but the effect disappeared by the end of the follow-up periods.
However, the 2-year results from the TREAT EARLIER trial showed that compared with patients given placebo, those given MTX showed improved MRI-detected joint inflammation, physical functioning, and reported symptoms.
The 4-year analysis of the trial further risk stratified participants and found that MTX showed a preventive effect in anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–negative participants at an increased risk for RA.
Abatacept also showed promise in preventing RA in two separate trials. In the ARIAA trial, compared with placebo, 6 months of treatment with abatacept reduced MRI inflammation and symptoms and lowered the rates of progression to RA. This treatment effect lessened during the 1-year follow-up period, but the difference between the two groups was still significant at 18 months.
In the APIPPRA trial, 12 months of treatment with abatacept improved subclinical inflammation and quality-of-life measures in participants and reduced the rates of progression to RA through another 12 months of observation. However, during this post-treatment follow-up period, the treatment effect began to diminish.
While there have been some promising findings — not only in disease prevention but also in disease modification — these studies all looked at different patient groups, noted Kulveer Mankia, MA, DM, an associate professor and consulting rheumatologist at the Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds in England.
“You have disparate, different inclusion criteria in different studies, all of which take years to complete,” he said. For example, while the TREAT EARLIER trial recruited patients with joint pain and subclinical joint inflammation via MRI, regardless of autoantibody status, the APIPPRA trial enrolled patients that were both ACPA+ and rheumatoid factor (RF)+ with joint pain.
“You’re left extrapolating as to whether [these interventions] will work in different at-risk populations,” he said.
Even with specific inclusion criteria in each study, there can still be heterogeneity in risk within a study group, Deane said. In the TREAT EARLIER study, 18%-20% of participants ultimately developed RA over the study period, which is lower than expected.
“While it seemed like a pretty high-risk group, it wasn’t as high risk as we thought,” he said, “and that’s why we’ve gone back to the drawing board.”
Risk Stratification Efforts
There are now two ongoing joint efforts by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) to define these populations and “bring some consensus to the field,” Mankia said.
The first aims to create a unanimous risk stratification tool for future RA prevention studies. The proposed system, devised for individuals with new joint symptoms who are at a risk for RA, was presented at the EULAR 2024 annual meeting and will be further discussed at the upcoming ACR 2024 annual meeting in Washington, DC.
The system uses a point system based on six criteria — three lab tests and three criteria commonly assessed in clinical practice:
- Morning stiffness
- Patient-reported joint swelling
- Difficulty making a fist
- Increased C-reactive protein
- RF positivity
- ACPA positivity
These criteria were picked so that the risk stratification tool can be used without imaging; however, the inclusion of MRI can further refine the score.
The ACR-EULAR task force that created the tool has emphasized that this criterion is specifically designed for research purposes and should not be used in clinical practice. Using this stratification tool should allow future clinical studies to group patients by similar risk, Deane said.
“Not that all studies have to look at exactly the same people, but each study should have similar risk stratification,” he said.
The second ACR-EULAR joint effort is taking a population-based approach to risk stratification, Deane said, to better predict RA risk in individuals without common symptoms like joint pain.
The aim is to create something analogous to the Framingham Risk Score in predicting cardiovascular disease, in which simple variables like total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and smoking status can be used to calculate an individual’s 10-year risk for CVD, Deane explained.
The second approach could also identify patients earlier in the progression to RA, which may be easier to treat than later stages of disease.
Understanding RA Origins
However, treating an earlier stage of disease might require a different approach. Up to this point, medical interventions for RA prevention used drugs approved to treat RA, but inventions during the pre-RA stage — before any joint symptoms appear — might require targeting different immunologic pathways.
“The general concept is if there is a pre-RA stage when joints are not involved, that means all the immunologic abnormalities are probably happening somewhere else in the body,” he said. “The big question is: Where is that, and how exactly is that happening?”
One theory is that RA begins to develop in mucosal sites, such as the intestines or lungs, before it involves synovial joints.
“In the absence of resolution, these localized immune processes transition into a systemic process that targets the joints, either by direct effects of microbiota, molecular mimicry, and/or immune amplification,” wrote Deane and coauthors in a recent review article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This, in turn, leads to inappropriate engagement of a range of effector mechanisms in both synovium and periarticular sites.”
Following this logic, the progression of the at-risk stage of RA could be considered a continuum along which there are multiple possible points for intervention. It’s also probable that the disease can develop through multiple pathways, Deane said.
“If you look at all the people who get rheumatoid arthritis, there’s probably no way those could have the same exact pathways,” he said. “There’s probably going to be different endotypes and understanding that is going to help us prevent disease in a better way.”
Looking Forward
Beyond improving risk stratification and understanding RA pathogenesis, researchers are also considering novel therapeutic approaches for future trials. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists could be worth exploring in RA prevention and treatment, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
These drugs — initially developed for diabetes — have already shown anti-inflammatory effects, and one study suggested that GLP-1s lowered the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Obesity is a known risk factor for RA, so weight loss aided by GLP-1 drugs could also help reduce risk in certain patients. Clinical trials are needed to explore GLP-1s for both RA prevention and treatment, he said.
While prevention trials up to this point have used one-time, time-limited interventions, longer durations of medication or multiple rounds of therapy may be more efficacious. Even for trials that demonstrated the intervention arms had less progression to RA, this effect diminished once participants stopped the medication. In the ARIAA and APIPPRA trials using abatacept, “it wasn’t like we hit a reset button and [patients] just permanently now did not get rheumatoid arthritis,” Deane said, suggesting that alternative approaches should be explored.
“Future studies need to look at potentially longer doses of drug or lower doses of drug, or some combination that might be effective,” he said.
Deane received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thermo Fisher, and Werfen and grant funding from Janssen Research and Development and Gilead Sciences. Mankia received grant support from Gilead, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Serac Life Sciences and honoraria or consultant fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, Galapagos, DeepCure, Serac Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, and Zura Bio. Sparks received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sonoma Biotherapeutics. He consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Merck, Mustang, Optum, Pfizer, ReCor Medical, Sana, Sobi, and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the discovery of autoantibodies and other risk factors for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), researchers developed clinical trials to see whether the disease can be prevented entirely. In the past 10 years, a number of these trials have concluded, with variable results.
While some trials demonstrated no effect at all, others showed that medical intervention can delay the onset of disease in certain populations and even reduce the rates of progression to RA. These completed trials also offer researchers the chance to identify opportunities to improve RA prevention trials moving forward.
“We’re looking at all that data and trying to figure out what the next step is going to be,” said Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and a rheumatologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.
Key lessons include the need for improved risk stratification tools and better understanding of RA pathogenesis, he said.
The Research So Far
All RA prevention trials except for one have been completed and/or published within the past decade, bringing valuable insights to the field. (See chart below.)
Atorvastatin (STAPRA) and hydroxychloroquine (StopRA) proved ineffective in preventing the onset of RA, and both trials were stopped early. Rituximab and methotrexate (MTX) both delayed the onset of RA, but the effect disappeared by the end of the follow-up periods.
However, the 2-year results from the TREAT EARLIER trial showed that compared with patients given placebo, those given MTX showed improved MRI-detected joint inflammation, physical functioning, and reported symptoms.
The 4-year analysis of the trial further risk stratified participants and found that MTX showed a preventive effect in anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–negative participants at an increased risk for RA.
Abatacept also showed promise in preventing RA in two separate trials. In the ARIAA trial, compared with placebo, 6 months of treatment with abatacept reduced MRI inflammation and symptoms and lowered the rates of progression to RA. This treatment effect lessened during the 1-year follow-up period, but the difference between the two groups was still significant at 18 months.
In the APIPPRA trial, 12 months of treatment with abatacept improved subclinical inflammation and quality-of-life measures in participants and reduced the rates of progression to RA through another 12 months of observation. However, during this post-treatment follow-up period, the treatment effect began to diminish.
While there have been some promising findings — not only in disease prevention but also in disease modification — these studies all looked at different patient groups, noted Kulveer Mankia, MA, DM, an associate professor and consulting rheumatologist at the Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds in England.
“You have disparate, different inclusion criteria in different studies, all of which take years to complete,” he said. For example, while the TREAT EARLIER trial recruited patients with joint pain and subclinical joint inflammation via MRI, regardless of autoantibody status, the APIPPRA trial enrolled patients that were both ACPA+ and rheumatoid factor (RF)+ with joint pain.
“You’re left extrapolating as to whether [these interventions] will work in different at-risk populations,” he said.
Even with specific inclusion criteria in each study, there can still be heterogeneity in risk within a study group, Deane said. In the TREAT EARLIER study, 18%-20% of participants ultimately developed RA over the study period, which is lower than expected.
“While it seemed like a pretty high-risk group, it wasn’t as high risk as we thought,” he said, “and that’s why we’ve gone back to the drawing board.”
Risk Stratification Efforts
There are now two ongoing joint efforts by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) to define these populations and “bring some consensus to the field,” Mankia said.
The first aims to create a unanimous risk stratification tool for future RA prevention studies. The proposed system, devised for individuals with new joint symptoms who are at a risk for RA, was presented at the EULAR 2024 annual meeting and will be further discussed at the upcoming ACR 2024 annual meeting in Washington, DC.
The system uses a point system based on six criteria — three lab tests and three criteria commonly assessed in clinical practice:
- Morning stiffness
- Patient-reported joint swelling
- Difficulty making a fist
- Increased C-reactive protein
- RF positivity
- ACPA positivity
These criteria were picked so that the risk stratification tool can be used without imaging; however, the inclusion of MRI can further refine the score.
The ACR-EULAR task force that created the tool has emphasized that this criterion is specifically designed for research purposes and should not be used in clinical practice. Using this stratification tool should allow future clinical studies to group patients by similar risk, Deane said.
“Not that all studies have to look at exactly the same people, but each study should have similar risk stratification,” he said.
The second ACR-EULAR joint effort is taking a population-based approach to risk stratification, Deane said, to better predict RA risk in individuals without common symptoms like joint pain.
The aim is to create something analogous to the Framingham Risk Score in predicting cardiovascular disease, in which simple variables like total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and smoking status can be used to calculate an individual’s 10-year risk for CVD, Deane explained.
The second approach could also identify patients earlier in the progression to RA, which may be easier to treat than later stages of disease.
Understanding RA Origins
However, treating an earlier stage of disease might require a different approach. Up to this point, medical interventions for RA prevention used drugs approved to treat RA, but inventions during the pre-RA stage — before any joint symptoms appear — might require targeting different immunologic pathways.
“The general concept is if there is a pre-RA stage when joints are not involved, that means all the immunologic abnormalities are probably happening somewhere else in the body,” he said. “The big question is: Where is that, and how exactly is that happening?”
One theory is that RA begins to develop in mucosal sites, such as the intestines or lungs, before it involves synovial joints.
“In the absence of resolution, these localized immune processes transition into a systemic process that targets the joints, either by direct effects of microbiota, molecular mimicry, and/or immune amplification,” wrote Deane and coauthors in a recent review article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This, in turn, leads to inappropriate engagement of a range of effector mechanisms in both synovium and periarticular sites.”
Following this logic, the progression of the at-risk stage of RA could be considered a continuum along which there are multiple possible points for intervention. It’s also probable that the disease can develop through multiple pathways, Deane said.
“If you look at all the people who get rheumatoid arthritis, there’s probably no way those could have the same exact pathways,” he said. “There’s probably going to be different endotypes and understanding that is going to help us prevent disease in a better way.”
Looking Forward
Beyond improving risk stratification and understanding RA pathogenesis, researchers are also considering novel therapeutic approaches for future trials. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists could be worth exploring in RA prevention and treatment, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
These drugs — initially developed for diabetes — have already shown anti-inflammatory effects, and one study suggested that GLP-1s lowered the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Obesity is a known risk factor for RA, so weight loss aided by GLP-1 drugs could also help reduce risk in certain patients. Clinical trials are needed to explore GLP-1s for both RA prevention and treatment, he said.
While prevention trials up to this point have used one-time, time-limited interventions, longer durations of medication or multiple rounds of therapy may be more efficacious. Even for trials that demonstrated the intervention arms had less progression to RA, this effect diminished once participants stopped the medication. In the ARIAA and APIPPRA trials using abatacept, “it wasn’t like we hit a reset button and [patients] just permanently now did not get rheumatoid arthritis,” Deane said, suggesting that alternative approaches should be explored.
“Future studies need to look at potentially longer doses of drug or lower doses of drug, or some combination that might be effective,” he said.
Deane received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thermo Fisher, and Werfen and grant funding from Janssen Research and Development and Gilead Sciences. Mankia received grant support from Gilead, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Serac Life Sciences and honoraria or consultant fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, Galapagos, DeepCure, Serac Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, and Zura Bio. Sparks received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sonoma Biotherapeutics. He consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Merck, Mustang, Optum, Pfizer, ReCor Medical, Sana, Sobi, and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What’s the Evidence Behind Popular Supplements in Rheumatology? Experts Weigh in
Many people with rheumatologic diseases try supplements for symptom relief. Here’s what you need to know about some common picks.
Dietary supplements were a $159 billion business in the United States in 2023, and many people with rheumatologic diseases are buying in. Research suggests more than 6 in 10 people with fibromyalgia, nearly 8 in 10 people with Sjögren’s disease, and more than 8 in 10 people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) take dietary supplements.
Whatever the symptom — pain, swelling, or fatigue — you can probably find a supplement purporting to relieve it. But do these supplements work, and are they safe? A study review in RMD Open comprising 24 systematic reviews and 150 original articles suggests more high-quality research is needed on the effects of dietary supplements on rheumatologic diseases. Most studies have focused on RA or osteoarthritis (OA), where the evidence level is moderate at best.
“The studies in this space are usually not very high quality because there’s no money to support them, among other things, plus the products are disparate,” said Janet Funk, MD, MS, professor in the School of Nutritional Sciences and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson. She recommended brushing up on supplements and finding out what patients are taking so you can offer advice and watch for drug-supplement interactions.
When asked for a medication list, many patients forget to report supplements, Funk said. “You have to prompt them specifically. I think some physicians have very negative views about supplements because so little data is known, and patients might pick up on that and decide not to report their use.” She recommended saying something like: “To give you the best possible care, I want to know everything you’re taking, including supplements. The things I’m prescribing could maybe interact with the things you’re taking, so I want to make sure I know about all of it so that together we can figure out if the combination of things is safe.”
The quality of dietary supplements varies, and they aren’t regulated like drugs by the Food and Drug Administration. Funk recommended selecting products verified by NSF or ConsumerLab. They test supplements to ensure the label reflects what’s inside.
This news organization scoured the literature and asked experts to weigh in on the evidence behind popular supplements in rheumatology today.
The Essential Nutrients
Vitamin supplements are a staple in many homes — but are they helpful? “Individual vitamin supplements will not provide any benefit unless the person is deficient in a specific vitamin or mineral,” according to Elena Philippou, PhD, RD, associate professor of nutrition-dietetics at the University of Nicosia in Cyprus, and Elena Nikiphorou, MBBS, a rheumatologist at King’s College London in England. For some patients, deficiency is a reality. A retrospective cohort study in The Journal of Clinical Medicine found that people with RA were 17% more likely than age-matched control individuals to have nutrient deficiencies, perhaps because symptoms like fatigue, pain, and nausea affect their eating habits. Here’s what the science says about common vitamin supplements.
Vitamin D. This hormone-like vitamin, which attaches to receptors on immune cells to tamp down inflammation, was the most popular dietary supplement among rheumatology patients in a recent study from the United Kingdom. Vitamin D deficiency is common in people with RA, lupus, Sjögren’s disease, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic sclerosis, and fibromyalgia. In some cases, vitamin D levels track with disease activity, research suggests. Corticosteroids can also make vitamin D deficiency more likely. Can supplements help?
In RA, evidence points to small improvements. A systematic review of 11 studies including 3049 patients published in Nutrition Reviews showed that vitamin D supplements significantly reduced patients’ pain and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using both C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR).
The research is mixed on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation for fibromyalgia symptoms, according to a study review in SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine that included two studies and 80 patients on supplementation. However, researchers said it’s still worth discussing the potential benefits of taking vitamin D.
“Vitamin D supplementation is important in the context of various rheumatic diseases to prevent or treat bone disease,” said Philippou and Nikiphorou. “People with rheumatic disease should speak to their healthcare provider and ask to check their blood vitamin D concentration.” The results can help you recommend a dose.
Folate. Patients on methotrexate should take folic acid supplements under the guidance of a healthcare provider, said Philippou and Nikiphorou. The reason: Methotrexate can deplete folic acid levels, increasing the risk for side effects. An analysis of adverse event reports published showed that methotrexate users who took folic acid (or tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors) had a reduced risk for hepatotoxicity or myelosuppression. A commonly recommended dose is 1 mg/d.
Vitamin B12. In a 2024 perspective paper in Rheumatology International, researchers said physicians should assess vitamin B12 levels early in the diagnostic process of rheumatologic diseases. One reason: Many symptoms of pernicious anemia, like fatigue, mimic symptoms of rheumatologic diseases. The gastrointestinal (GI) effects of systemic sclerosis could bring on vitamin B12 deficiency. In a small study in The Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 44 of 62 patients with systemic sclerosis had low vitamin B12 levels.
Vitamin E. Vitamin E deficiency is rare in healthy adults. However, some medical conditions, like inflammatory bowel disease and malabsorption disorders, can make vitamin E deficiency more likely. In RA, a vitamin E supplement could help reduce joint swelling and sensitivity, according to a systematic review of nine studies including 39,845 patients in The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Researchers credit the nutrient’s role in aiding intestinal repair. Use with caution, as this supplement can increase bleeding risk in doses over 1000 mg/d.
Vitamin A. Like vitamin E, vitamin A deficiency is rare in the United States. The risk of oversupplementing is higher than undersupplementing. However, vitamin A deficiency can happen in people with chronic pancreatic, liver, or GI problems. In people with deficiency, a vitamin A supplement can help relieve dry eye symptoms common in Sjögren’s disease, suggests a narrative review published in Nutrients. Vitamin A might help reduce ocular surface changes by supporting the production of proteins that protect the outermost surfaces of the eyes. The recommended daily allowance for vitamin A is 900 μg. High-dose supplements can cause toxicity, resulting in GI symptoms and problems like lethargy, drowsiness, increased intracranial pressure, and skin changes.
The Replacements
These substances are similar to naturally occurring compounds in our bodies. The question is whether ingesting them yields benefits.
Glucosamine and chondroitin. Glucosamine and chondroitin occur naturally in our bodies and help us form and protect connective tissues. In pill form, this combo is the most popular dietary supplement for OA, according to research in the journal Maturitas. But studies of its effectiveness yield mixed results. A systematic review of 25 studies published in Inflammopharmacology showed that, in patients with knee OA, supplementation with about 1500 mg of glucosamine per day reduced tibiofemoral joint space narrowing, while supplementation with about 800 mg/d of chondroitin reduced pain intensity and improved physical function, compared with placebo. The duo of glucosamine and chondroitin did not bring significant benefits, perhaps because more studies are needed. Most side effects were mild, but some literature points to the potential for glucosamine to increase warfarin’s blood-thinning effects.
Omega-3 fatty acids. Fish oil is a top-selling supplement, and it might be helpful in inflammatory rheumatologic diseases. A systematic review of 30 studies including 710 patients published in Arthritis Research & Therapy showed that omega-3 fatty acid supplements can improve pain, swollen and tender joint count, DAS28 scores, and Health Assessment Questionnaire scores in patients with RA, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. In patients with lupus, a study review that included five studies and 284 patients in The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health suggested omega-3 fatty acid supplements could improve ESR, CRP, disease activity, inflammatory markers, oxidative stress, lipid levels, and endothelial function.
Omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory effects that might explain their benefits. In patients with RA, for example, fish oil supplementation was associated with elevated blood levels of resolvins and protectins, which help quell inflammation, according to a study in Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids.
Philippou and Nikiphorou recommended combining food and supplements: Eat oily fish at least twice a week, regularly consume plant-based sources of omega-3s — like chia seeds, flaxseeds, or walnuts — and consider a daily supplement that contains 2 g of omega-3s from docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. Most fish oil side effects are mild, like heartburn and bad breath. Fish oil can have blood-thinning effects at high doses, so special attention is needed for patients on anticoagulants.
Probiotics. Building up the good bacteria in your gut might help you fight the effects of rheumatologic diseases. A systematic review of 80 randomized controlled trials in BMC Medicine suggested that therapies targeting the gut microbiota might improve the symptoms or inflammatory factors in celiac disease, lupus, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis, Sjögren’s disease, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. Probiotics were also shown to relieve pain in fibromyalgia, but they didn’t affect scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire. Probiotics were not helpful in spondyloarthritis or RA. There were no adverse events. By improving the balance of bacteria in the gut, probiotics might inhibit pro-inflammatory factors and signaling pathways and regulate CD4+ T-cell differentiation, the researchers wrote.
Not all probiotic supplements are created equal. Effects can vary by microorganism and dose. Until more high-quality studies are published, Philippou and Nikiphorou recommend daily consumption of probiotic food sources such as yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, kimchi, tempeh, miso, and kombucha, along with prebiotic food sources such as bananas, onion, artichokes, asparagus, oats, leeks, and garlic.
Collagen. An increasingly popular supplement for hair, skin, and nails, some collagen peptide or hydrolyzed collagen supplements come with claims about joint health, too. Inside our bodies, collagen helps build joints. As a supplement, the jury is still out. A systematic review of 19 studies in The International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases suggested more research is needed to determine whether collagen supplements are harmful or helpful in OA or RA. Studies haven’t shown adverse events, and doses typically range from 2.5 to 15 g/d.
Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). This antioxidant occurs naturally in our cells and is produced through microbial fermentation for use in dietary supplements. A study review of 20 articles including 483 patients in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN concluded that CoQ10 supplementation up to 300 mg/d was beneficial in RA, fibromyalgia, or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
In RA, CoQ10 supplementation improved disease activity index, ESR, and cytokine levels and decreased malondialdehyde. CoQ10 might protect against the overproduction of reactive oxygen species that can promote inflammation and joint damage, the researchers said. In fibromyalgia, CoQ10 was linked with improvements in pain, fatigue, sleep, tender points count, mood disorders, and scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire in most of the included studies. CoQ10 might help in fibromyalgia by improving mitochondrial dysfunction. In APS, CoQ10 improved endothelial function and decreased prothrombotic and pro-inflammatory mediators. CoQ10 might change the expression of genes that promote atherosclerosis. A few patients had GI side effects like nausea and diarrhea, but the supplements were generally well tolerated.
Melatonin. Commonly touted as a sleep aid, this hormone has immune and anti-inflammatory activities that could benefit people with rheumatologic diseases. A study review of 13 articles including 533 patients in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN concluded that melatonin can help improve sleep, pain, and mood in fibromyalgia, OA, and osteoporosis but not in RA. Side effects were minimal, but a few people experienced nausea, drowsiness, nightmares, or headaches. Doses of 5-6 mg/d are likely safe for most adults.
The Plant-Derived Antioxidants
Many supplements used in rheumatology are antioxidants derived from herbs, spices, or other plants. When plants encounter stressors, like temperature changes or hungry insects, their secondary metabolism revs up and creates compounds with biological properties. Some of these substances influence inflammatory pathways in the human body, said Luís Silva, PhD, a medicinal chemistry researcher at the Polytechnic Institute of Guarda in Portugal. “If it is possible to reduce these kinds of anti-inflammatory processes, it is also possible that we could help people with inflammatory diseases to a good life, or a better life.”
Turmeric and curcumin. You might see this supplement labeled as turmeric, a golden spice in curry powder, or curcumin, an antioxidant compound known as a curcuminoid in turmeric. Curcuminoids might reduce inflammation by scavenging free radicals and inhibiting enzymes that make prostaglandins, Silva said.
Turmeric is the most popular herbal supplement for people with RA, according to Funk’s research. A study review of six publications including 539 patients in Frontiers in Immunology showed that curcumin supplements improved RA patients’ ESR, DAS, swollen joint count, and tender joint count. Turmeric could help patients with OA, too. Patients with OA who took 1000 mg/d of curcumin improved their pain and function, according to a systematic review including 12 studies and 1438 participants in the journal Nutrients. In lupus, small studies are promising but inconclusive, suggested a study review in Frontiers in Immunology.
Watch patients taking turmeric and methotrexate closely, Funk said. Both have been associated with liver problems. Some users also experience GI symptoms like diarrhea because turmeric doesn’t absorb well in the GI tract.
Milk thistle (silymarin). This flowering plant is often marketed as a liver-supporting supplement, but research also suggests promise in RA and OA. A systematic review of 12 studies in Current Rheumatology Reviews suggested that silymarin supplements might help relieve pain, reduce inflammation, and protect the cartilage matrix, synovial membrane, and cartilage cells in joints. This supplement might help via immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anti-apoptotic properties, the researchers said. Doses of 250-750 mg appear to be safe. Side effects such as gastroenteritis, diarrhea, bloating, and headache can occur.
Boswellia serrata. Sourced from the resin of a tree that grows in dry, mountainous regions of Asia and Africa, Boswellia serrata can help relieve joint pain and stiffness and improve joint function in OA, suggested a systematic review of seven trials involving 545 patients in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies. Users saw benefits when taking 100-250 mg/d for 4 weeks or more. Compounds in Boswellia serrata may inhibit 5-lipoxygenase, an enzyme involved in producing inflammatory leukotrienes. No adverse events were reported. In some studies, users have reported GI side effects.
Ginger. Ginger is a popular herbal supplement among people with RA, Funk’s research suggested. One small clinical trial involving 70 patients with RA in the journal Gene showed that taking 1500 mg/d of ginger for 12 weeks improved their DAS and boosted their expression of FoxP3 genes, which are linked with the function of regulatory T cells. A meta-analysis including three studies with 330 patients taking ginger published in the journal Nutrients suggested ginger can reduce pain and systemic inflammation in people with OA. Preclinical studies suggested phenolic compounds in this spicy root, such as gingerols, reduce inflammation through multiple mechanisms.
Funk’s research revealed wide variation in the quality of ginger supplements, reinforcing the importance of selecting an independently verified product. Research suggested a safe dose is up to 2-2.5 g/kg body weight.
Resveratrol. Found in red grapes and red wine, this compound is particularly good at blocking COX-2 enzymes, an important step in the inflammatory cascade, Silva said. “Because of their chemical structure, they have great affinity to these enzymes to lead to their inhibition,” he said. A study review of five articles including 481 patients in The European Journal of Rheumatology showed that people with OA, RA, or Takayasu arteritis who took 250-1000 mg/d of resveratrol saw improvements in pain, function, disease activity, joint swelling, and inflammation, with no side effects.
Cinnamon. This warming spice is gaining popularity as a supplement, reported the American Botanical Council. Cinnamon is often marketed as lowering blood sugar and supporting bone health. In a small study of 36 women with RA published in The Journal of the American College of Nutrition, participants who consumed 2 g/d of cinnamon powder had reduced DASs along with reduced pain and tender and swollen joint counts. Cinnamon may reduce pain by inhibiting prostaglandin and blunt inflammation by reducing the release of arachidonic acid from cell membranes, according to a study review in Frontiers in Pharmacology. GI problems and allergic reactions are among the most common side effects.
Funk, Nikiphorou, Philippou, and Silva all had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many people with rheumatologic diseases try supplements for symptom relief. Here’s what you need to know about some common picks.
Dietary supplements were a $159 billion business in the United States in 2023, and many people with rheumatologic diseases are buying in. Research suggests more than 6 in 10 people with fibromyalgia, nearly 8 in 10 people with Sjögren’s disease, and more than 8 in 10 people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) take dietary supplements.
Whatever the symptom — pain, swelling, or fatigue — you can probably find a supplement purporting to relieve it. But do these supplements work, and are they safe? A study review in RMD Open comprising 24 systematic reviews and 150 original articles suggests more high-quality research is needed on the effects of dietary supplements on rheumatologic diseases. Most studies have focused on RA or osteoarthritis (OA), where the evidence level is moderate at best.
“The studies in this space are usually not very high quality because there’s no money to support them, among other things, plus the products are disparate,” said Janet Funk, MD, MS, professor in the School of Nutritional Sciences and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson. She recommended brushing up on supplements and finding out what patients are taking so you can offer advice and watch for drug-supplement interactions.
When asked for a medication list, many patients forget to report supplements, Funk said. “You have to prompt them specifically. I think some physicians have very negative views about supplements because so little data is known, and patients might pick up on that and decide not to report their use.” She recommended saying something like: “To give you the best possible care, I want to know everything you’re taking, including supplements. The things I’m prescribing could maybe interact with the things you’re taking, so I want to make sure I know about all of it so that together we can figure out if the combination of things is safe.”
The quality of dietary supplements varies, and they aren’t regulated like drugs by the Food and Drug Administration. Funk recommended selecting products verified by NSF or ConsumerLab. They test supplements to ensure the label reflects what’s inside.
This news organization scoured the literature and asked experts to weigh in on the evidence behind popular supplements in rheumatology today.
The Essential Nutrients
Vitamin supplements are a staple in many homes — but are they helpful? “Individual vitamin supplements will not provide any benefit unless the person is deficient in a specific vitamin or mineral,” according to Elena Philippou, PhD, RD, associate professor of nutrition-dietetics at the University of Nicosia in Cyprus, and Elena Nikiphorou, MBBS, a rheumatologist at King’s College London in England. For some patients, deficiency is a reality. A retrospective cohort study in The Journal of Clinical Medicine found that people with RA were 17% more likely than age-matched control individuals to have nutrient deficiencies, perhaps because symptoms like fatigue, pain, and nausea affect their eating habits. Here’s what the science says about common vitamin supplements.
Vitamin D. This hormone-like vitamin, which attaches to receptors on immune cells to tamp down inflammation, was the most popular dietary supplement among rheumatology patients in a recent study from the United Kingdom. Vitamin D deficiency is common in people with RA, lupus, Sjögren’s disease, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic sclerosis, and fibromyalgia. In some cases, vitamin D levels track with disease activity, research suggests. Corticosteroids can also make vitamin D deficiency more likely. Can supplements help?
In RA, evidence points to small improvements. A systematic review of 11 studies including 3049 patients published in Nutrition Reviews showed that vitamin D supplements significantly reduced patients’ pain and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using both C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR).
The research is mixed on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation for fibromyalgia symptoms, according to a study review in SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine that included two studies and 80 patients on supplementation. However, researchers said it’s still worth discussing the potential benefits of taking vitamin D.
“Vitamin D supplementation is important in the context of various rheumatic diseases to prevent or treat bone disease,” said Philippou and Nikiphorou. “People with rheumatic disease should speak to their healthcare provider and ask to check their blood vitamin D concentration.” The results can help you recommend a dose.
Folate. Patients on methotrexate should take folic acid supplements under the guidance of a healthcare provider, said Philippou and Nikiphorou. The reason: Methotrexate can deplete folic acid levels, increasing the risk for side effects. An analysis of adverse event reports published showed that methotrexate users who took folic acid (or tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors) had a reduced risk for hepatotoxicity or myelosuppression. A commonly recommended dose is 1 mg/d.
Vitamin B12. In a 2024 perspective paper in Rheumatology International, researchers said physicians should assess vitamin B12 levels early in the diagnostic process of rheumatologic diseases. One reason: Many symptoms of pernicious anemia, like fatigue, mimic symptoms of rheumatologic diseases. The gastrointestinal (GI) effects of systemic sclerosis could bring on vitamin B12 deficiency. In a small study in The Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 44 of 62 patients with systemic sclerosis had low vitamin B12 levels.
Vitamin E. Vitamin E deficiency is rare in healthy adults. However, some medical conditions, like inflammatory bowel disease and malabsorption disorders, can make vitamin E deficiency more likely. In RA, a vitamin E supplement could help reduce joint swelling and sensitivity, according to a systematic review of nine studies including 39,845 patients in The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Researchers credit the nutrient’s role in aiding intestinal repair. Use with caution, as this supplement can increase bleeding risk in doses over 1000 mg/d.
Vitamin A. Like vitamin E, vitamin A deficiency is rare in the United States. The risk of oversupplementing is higher than undersupplementing. However, vitamin A deficiency can happen in people with chronic pancreatic, liver, or GI problems. In people with deficiency, a vitamin A supplement can help relieve dry eye symptoms common in Sjögren’s disease, suggests a narrative review published in Nutrients. Vitamin A might help reduce ocular surface changes by supporting the production of proteins that protect the outermost surfaces of the eyes. The recommended daily allowance for vitamin A is 900 μg. High-dose supplements can cause toxicity, resulting in GI symptoms and problems like lethargy, drowsiness, increased intracranial pressure, and skin changes.
The Replacements
These substances are similar to naturally occurring compounds in our bodies. The question is whether ingesting them yields benefits.
Glucosamine and chondroitin. Glucosamine and chondroitin occur naturally in our bodies and help us form and protect connective tissues. In pill form, this combo is the most popular dietary supplement for OA, according to research in the journal Maturitas. But studies of its effectiveness yield mixed results. A systematic review of 25 studies published in Inflammopharmacology showed that, in patients with knee OA, supplementation with about 1500 mg of glucosamine per day reduced tibiofemoral joint space narrowing, while supplementation with about 800 mg/d of chondroitin reduced pain intensity and improved physical function, compared with placebo. The duo of glucosamine and chondroitin did not bring significant benefits, perhaps because more studies are needed. Most side effects were mild, but some literature points to the potential for glucosamine to increase warfarin’s blood-thinning effects.
Omega-3 fatty acids. Fish oil is a top-selling supplement, and it might be helpful in inflammatory rheumatologic diseases. A systematic review of 30 studies including 710 patients published in Arthritis Research & Therapy showed that omega-3 fatty acid supplements can improve pain, swollen and tender joint count, DAS28 scores, and Health Assessment Questionnaire scores in patients with RA, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. In patients with lupus, a study review that included five studies and 284 patients in The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health suggested omega-3 fatty acid supplements could improve ESR, CRP, disease activity, inflammatory markers, oxidative stress, lipid levels, and endothelial function.
Omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory effects that might explain their benefits. In patients with RA, for example, fish oil supplementation was associated with elevated blood levels of resolvins and protectins, which help quell inflammation, according to a study in Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids.
Philippou and Nikiphorou recommended combining food and supplements: Eat oily fish at least twice a week, regularly consume plant-based sources of omega-3s — like chia seeds, flaxseeds, or walnuts — and consider a daily supplement that contains 2 g of omega-3s from docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. Most fish oil side effects are mild, like heartburn and bad breath. Fish oil can have blood-thinning effects at high doses, so special attention is needed for patients on anticoagulants.
Probiotics. Building up the good bacteria in your gut might help you fight the effects of rheumatologic diseases. A systematic review of 80 randomized controlled trials in BMC Medicine suggested that therapies targeting the gut microbiota might improve the symptoms or inflammatory factors in celiac disease, lupus, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis, Sjögren’s disease, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. Probiotics were also shown to relieve pain in fibromyalgia, but they didn’t affect scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire. Probiotics were not helpful in spondyloarthritis or RA. There were no adverse events. By improving the balance of bacteria in the gut, probiotics might inhibit pro-inflammatory factors and signaling pathways and regulate CD4+ T-cell differentiation, the researchers wrote.
Not all probiotic supplements are created equal. Effects can vary by microorganism and dose. Until more high-quality studies are published, Philippou and Nikiphorou recommend daily consumption of probiotic food sources such as yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, kimchi, tempeh, miso, and kombucha, along with prebiotic food sources such as bananas, onion, artichokes, asparagus, oats, leeks, and garlic.
Collagen. An increasingly popular supplement for hair, skin, and nails, some collagen peptide or hydrolyzed collagen supplements come with claims about joint health, too. Inside our bodies, collagen helps build joints. As a supplement, the jury is still out. A systematic review of 19 studies in The International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases suggested more research is needed to determine whether collagen supplements are harmful or helpful in OA or RA. Studies haven’t shown adverse events, and doses typically range from 2.5 to 15 g/d.
Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). This antioxidant occurs naturally in our cells and is produced through microbial fermentation for use in dietary supplements. A study review of 20 articles including 483 patients in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN concluded that CoQ10 supplementation up to 300 mg/d was beneficial in RA, fibromyalgia, or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
In RA, CoQ10 supplementation improved disease activity index, ESR, and cytokine levels and decreased malondialdehyde. CoQ10 might protect against the overproduction of reactive oxygen species that can promote inflammation and joint damage, the researchers said. In fibromyalgia, CoQ10 was linked with improvements in pain, fatigue, sleep, tender points count, mood disorders, and scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire in most of the included studies. CoQ10 might help in fibromyalgia by improving mitochondrial dysfunction. In APS, CoQ10 improved endothelial function and decreased prothrombotic and pro-inflammatory mediators. CoQ10 might change the expression of genes that promote atherosclerosis. A few patients had GI side effects like nausea and diarrhea, but the supplements were generally well tolerated.
Melatonin. Commonly touted as a sleep aid, this hormone has immune and anti-inflammatory activities that could benefit people with rheumatologic diseases. A study review of 13 articles including 533 patients in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN concluded that melatonin can help improve sleep, pain, and mood in fibromyalgia, OA, and osteoporosis but not in RA. Side effects were minimal, but a few people experienced nausea, drowsiness, nightmares, or headaches. Doses of 5-6 mg/d are likely safe for most adults.
The Plant-Derived Antioxidants
Many supplements used in rheumatology are antioxidants derived from herbs, spices, or other plants. When plants encounter stressors, like temperature changes or hungry insects, their secondary metabolism revs up and creates compounds with biological properties. Some of these substances influence inflammatory pathways in the human body, said Luís Silva, PhD, a medicinal chemistry researcher at the Polytechnic Institute of Guarda in Portugal. “If it is possible to reduce these kinds of anti-inflammatory processes, it is also possible that we could help people with inflammatory diseases to a good life, or a better life.”
Turmeric and curcumin. You might see this supplement labeled as turmeric, a golden spice in curry powder, or curcumin, an antioxidant compound known as a curcuminoid in turmeric. Curcuminoids might reduce inflammation by scavenging free radicals and inhibiting enzymes that make prostaglandins, Silva said.
Turmeric is the most popular herbal supplement for people with RA, according to Funk’s research. A study review of six publications including 539 patients in Frontiers in Immunology showed that curcumin supplements improved RA patients’ ESR, DAS, swollen joint count, and tender joint count. Turmeric could help patients with OA, too. Patients with OA who took 1000 mg/d of curcumin improved their pain and function, according to a systematic review including 12 studies and 1438 participants in the journal Nutrients. In lupus, small studies are promising but inconclusive, suggested a study review in Frontiers in Immunology.
Watch patients taking turmeric and methotrexate closely, Funk said. Both have been associated with liver problems. Some users also experience GI symptoms like diarrhea because turmeric doesn’t absorb well in the GI tract.
Milk thistle (silymarin). This flowering plant is often marketed as a liver-supporting supplement, but research also suggests promise in RA and OA. A systematic review of 12 studies in Current Rheumatology Reviews suggested that silymarin supplements might help relieve pain, reduce inflammation, and protect the cartilage matrix, synovial membrane, and cartilage cells in joints. This supplement might help via immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anti-apoptotic properties, the researchers said. Doses of 250-750 mg appear to be safe. Side effects such as gastroenteritis, diarrhea, bloating, and headache can occur.
Boswellia serrata. Sourced from the resin of a tree that grows in dry, mountainous regions of Asia and Africa, Boswellia serrata can help relieve joint pain and stiffness and improve joint function in OA, suggested a systematic review of seven trials involving 545 patients in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies. Users saw benefits when taking 100-250 mg/d for 4 weeks or more. Compounds in Boswellia serrata may inhibit 5-lipoxygenase, an enzyme involved in producing inflammatory leukotrienes. No adverse events were reported. In some studies, users have reported GI side effects.
Ginger. Ginger is a popular herbal supplement among people with RA, Funk’s research suggested. One small clinical trial involving 70 patients with RA in the journal Gene showed that taking 1500 mg/d of ginger for 12 weeks improved their DAS and boosted their expression of FoxP3 genes, which are linked with the function of regulatory T cells. A meta-analysis including three studies with 330 patients taking ginger published in the journal Nutrients suggested ginger can reduce pain and systemic inflammation in people with OA. Preclinical studies suggested phenolic compounds in this spicy root, such as gingerols, reduce inflammation through multiple mechanisms.
Funk’s research revealed wide variation in the quality of ginger supplements, reinforcing the importance of selecting an independently verified product. Research suggested a safe dose is up to 2-2.5 g/kg body weight.
Resveratrol. Found in red grapes and red wine, this compound is particularly good at blocking COX-2 enzymes, an important step in the inflammatory cascade, Silva said. “Because of their chemical structure, they have great affinity to these enzymes to lead to their inhibition,” he said. A study review of five articles including 481 patients in The European Journal of Rheumatology showed that people with OA, RA, or Takayasu arteritis who took 250-1000 mg/d of resveratrol saw improvements in pain, function, disease activity, joint swelling, and inflammation, with no side effects.
Cinnamon. This warming spice is gaining popularity as a supplement, reported the American Botanical Council. Cinnamon is often marketed as lowering blood sugar and supporting bone health. In a small study of 36 women with RA published in The Journal of the American College of Nutrition, participants who consumed 2 g/d of cinnamon powder had reduced DASs along with reduced pain and tender and swollen joint counts. Cinnamon may reduce pain by inhibiting prostaglandin and blunt inflammation by reducing the release of arachidonic acid from cell membranes, according to a study review in Frontiers in Pharmacology. GI problems and allergic reactions are among the most common side effects.
Funk, Nikiphorou, Philippou, and Silva all had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many people with rheumatologic diseases try supplements for symptom relief. Here’s what you need to know about some common picks.
Dietary supplements were a $159 billion business in the United States in 2023, and many people with rheumatologic diseases are buying in. Research suggests more than 6 in 10 people with fibromyalgia, nearly 8 in 10 people with Sjögren’s disease, and more than 8 in 10 people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) take dietary supplements.
Whatever the symptom — pain, swelling, or fatigue — you can probably find a supplement purporting to relieve it. But do these supplements work, and are they safe? A study review in RMD Open comprising 24 systematic reviews and 150 original articles suggests more high-quality research is needed on the effects of dietary supplements on rheumatologic diseases. Most studies have focused on RA or osteoarthritis (OA), where the evidence level is moderate at best.
“The studies in this space are usually not very high quality because there’s no money to support them, among other things, plus the products are disparate,” said Janet Funk, MD, MS, professor in the School of Nutritional Sciences and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson. She recommended brushing up on supplements and finding out what patients are taking so you can offer advice and watch for drug-supplement interactions.
When asked for a medication list, many patients forget to report supplements, Funk said. “You have to prompt them specifically. I think some physicians have very negative views about supplements because so little data is known, and patients might pick up on that and decide not to report their use.” She recommended saying something like: “To give you the best possible care, I want to know everything you’re taking, including supplements. The things I’m prescribing could maybe interact with the things you’re taking, so I want to make sure I know about all of it so that together we can figure out if the combination of things is safe.”
The quality of dietary supplements varies, and they aren’t regulated like drugs by the Food and Drug Administration. Funk recommended selecting products verified by NSF or ConsumerLab. They test supplements to ensure the label reflects what’s inside.
This news organization scoured the literature and asked experts to weigh in on the evidence behind popular supplements in rheumatology today.
The Essential Nutrients
Vitamin supplements are a staple in many homes — but are they helpful? “Individual vitamin supplements will not provide any benefit unless the person is deficient in a specific vitamin or mineral,” according to Elena Philippou, PhD, RD, associate professor of nutrition-dietetics at the University of Nicosia in Cyprus, and Elena Nikiphorou, MBBS, a rheumatologist at King’s College London in England. For some patients, deficiency is a reality. A retrospective cohort study in The Journal of Clinical Medicine found that people with RA were 17% more likely than age-matched control individuals to have nutrient deficiencies, perhaps because symptoms like fatigue, pain, and nausea affect their eating habits. Here’s what the science says about common vitamin supplements.
Vitamin D. This hormone-like vitamin, which attaches to receptors on immune cells to tamp down inflammation, was the most popular dietary supplement among rheumatology patients in a recent study from the United Kingdom. Vitamin D deficiency is common in people with RA, lupus, Sjögren’s disease, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic sclerosis, and fibromyalgia. In some cases, vitamin D levels track with disease activity, research suggests. Corticosteroids can also make vitamin D deficiency more likely. Can supplements help?
In RA, evidence points to small improvements. A systematic review of 11 studies including 3049 patients published in Nutrition Reviews showed that vitamin D supplements significantly reduced patients’ pain and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using both C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR).
The research is mixed on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation for fibromyalgia symptoms, according to a study review in SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine that included two studies and 80 patients on supplementation. However, researchers said it’s still worth discussing the potential benefits of taking vitamin D.
“Vitamin D supplementation is important in the context of various rheumatic diseases to prevent or treat bone disease,” said Philippou and Nikiphorou. “People with rheumatic disease should speak to their healthcare provider and ask to check their blood vitamin D concentration.” The results can help you recommend a dose.
Folate. Patients on methotrexate should take folic acid supplements under the guidance of a healthcare provider, said Philippou and Nikiphorou. The reason: Methotrexate can deplete folic acid levels, increasing the risk for side effects. An analysis of adverse event reports published showed that methotrexate users who took folic acid (or tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors) had a reduced risk for hepatotoxicity or myelosuppression. A commonly recommended dose is 1 mg/d.
Vitamin B12. In a 2024 perspective paper in Rheumatology International, researchers said physicians should assess vitamin B12 levels early in the diagnostic process of rheumatologic diseases. One reason: Many symptoms of pernicious anemia, like fatigue, mimic symptoms of rheumatologic diseases. The gastrointestinal (GI) effects of systemic sclerosis could bring on vitamin B12 deficiency. In a small study in The Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 44 of 62 patients with systemic sclerosis had low vitamin B12 levels.
Vitamin E. Vitamin E deficiency is rare in healthy adults. However, some medical conditions, like inflammatory bowel disease and malabsorption disorders, can make vitamin E deficiency more likely. In RA, a vitamin E supplement could help reduce joint swelling and sensitivity, according to a systematic review of nine studies including 39,845 patients in The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Researchers credit the nutrient’s role in aiding intestinal repair. Use with caution, as this supplement can increase bleeding risk in doses over 1000 mg/d.
Vitamin A. Like vitamin E, vitamin A deficiency is rare in the United States. The risk of oversupplementing is higher than undersupplementing. However, vitamin A deficiency can happen in people with chronic pancreatic, liver, or GI problems. In people with deficiency, a vitamin A supplement can help relieve dry eye symptoms common in Sjögren’s disease, suggests a narrative review published in Nutrients. Vitamin A might help reduce ocular surface changes by supporting the production of proteins that protect the outermost surfaces of the eyes. The recommended daily allowance for vitamin A is 900 μg. High-dose supplements can cause toxicity, resulting in GI symptoms and problems like lethargy, drowsiness, increased intracranial pressure, and skin changes.
The Replacements
These substances are similar to naturally occurring compounds in our bodies. The question is whether ingesting them yields benefits.
Glucosamine and chondroitin. Glucosamine and chondroitin occur naturally in our bodies and help us form and protect connective tissues. In pill form, this combo is the most popular dietary supplement for OA, according to research in the journal Maturitas. But studies of its effectiveness yield mixed results. A systematic review of 25 studies published in Inflammopharmacology showed that, in patients with knee OA, supplementation with about 1500 mg of glucosamine per day reduced tibiofemoral joint space narrowing, while supplementation with about 800 mg/d of chondroitin reduced pain intensity and improved physical function, compared with placebo. The duo of glucosamine and chondroitin did not bring significant benefits, perhaps because more studies are needed. Most side effects were mild, but some literature points to the potential for glucosamine to increase warfarin’s blood-thinning effects.
Omega-3 fatty acids. Fish oil is a top-selling supplement, and it might be helpful in inflammatory rheumatologic diseases. A systematic review of 30 studies including 710 patients published in Arthritis Research & Therapy showed that omega-3 fatty acid supplements can improve pain, swollen and tender joint count, DAS28 scores, and Health Assessment Questionnaire scores in patients with RA, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. In patients with lupus, a study review that included five studies and 284 patients in The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health suggested omega-3 fatty acid supplements could improve ESR, CRP, disease activity, inflammatory markers, oxidative stress, lipid levels, and endothelial function.
Omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory effects that might explain their benefits. In patients with RA, for example, fish oil supplementation was associated with elevated blood levels of resolvins and protectins, which help quell inflammation, according to a study in Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids.
Philippou and Nikiphorou recommended combining food and supplements: Eat oily fish at least twice a week, regularly consume plant-based sources of omega-3s — like chia seeds, flaxseeds, or walnuts — and consider a daily supplement that contains 2 g of omega-3s from docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. Most fish oil side effects are mild, like heartburn and bad breath. Fish oil can have blood-thinning effects at high doses, so special attention is needed for patients on anticoagulants.
Probiotics. Building up the good bacteria in your gut might help you fight the effects of rheumatologic diseases. A systematic review of 80 randomized controlled trials in BMC Medicine suggested that therapies targeting the gut microbiota might improve the symptoms or inflammatory factors in celiac disease, lupus, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis, Sjögren’s disease, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. Probiotics were also shown to relieve pain in fibromyalgia, but they didn’t affect scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire. Probiotics were not helpful in spondyloarthritis or RA. There were no adverse events. By improving the balance of bacteria in the gut, probiotics might inhibit pro-inflammatory factors and signaling pathways and regulate CD4+ T-cell differentiation, the researchers wrote.
Not all probiotic supplements are created equal. Effects can vary by microorganism and dose. Until more high-quality studies are published, Philippou and Nikiphorou recommend daily consumption of probiotic food sources such as yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, kimchi, tempeh, miso, and kombucha, along with prebiotic food sources such as bananas, onion, artichokes, asparagus, oats, leeks, and garlic.
Collagen. An increasingly popular supplement for hair, skin, and nails, some collagen peptide or hydrolyzed collagen supplements come with claims about joint health, too. Inside our bodies, collagen helps build joints. As a supplement, the jury is still out. A systematic review of 19 studies in The International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases suggested more research is needed to determine whether collagen supplements are harmful or helpful in OA or RA. Studies haven’t shown adverse events, and doses typically range from 2.5 to 15 g/d.
Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). This antioxidant occurs naturally in our cells and is produced through microbial fermentation for use in dietary supplements. A study review of 20 articles including 483 patients in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN concluded that CoQ10 supplementation up to 300 mg/d was beneficial in RA, fibromyalgia, or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
In RA, CoQ10 supplementation improved disease activity index, ESR, and cytokine levels and decreased malondialdehyde. CoQ10 might protect against the overproduction of reactive oxygen species that can promote inflammation and joint damage, the researchers said. In fibromyalgia, CoQ10 was linked with improvements in pain, fatigue, sleep, tender points count, mood disorders, and scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire in most of the included studies. CoQ10 might help in fibromyalgia by improving mitochondrial dysfunction. In APS, CoQ10 improved endothelial function and decreased prothrombotic and pro-inflammatory mediators. CoQ10 might change the expression of genes that promote atherosclerosis. A few patients had GI side effects like nausea and diarrhea, but the supplements were generally well tolerated.
Melatonin. Commonly touted as a sleep aid, this hormone has immune and anti-inflammatory activities that could benefit people with rheumatologic diseases. A study review of 13 articles including 533 patients in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN concluded that melatonin can help improve sleep, pain, and mood in fibromyalgia, OA, and osteoporosis but not in RA. Side effects were minimal, but a few people experienced nausea, drowsiness, nightmares, or headaches. Doses of 5-6 mg/d are likely safe for most adults.
The Plant-Derived Antioxidants
Many supplements used in rheumatology are antioxidants derived from herbs, spices, or other plants. When plants encounter stressors, like temperature changes or hungry insects, their secondary metabolism revs up and creates compounds with biological properties. Some of these substances influence inflammatory pathways in the human body, said Luís Silva, PhD, a medicinal chemistry researcher at the Polytechnic Institute of Guarda in Portugal. “If it is possible to reduce these kinds of anti-inflammatory processes, it is also possible that we could help people with inflammatory diseases to a good life, or a better life.”
Turmeric and curcumin. You might see this supplement labeled as turmeric, a golden spice in curry powder, or curcumin, an antioxidant compound known as a curcuminoid in turmeric. Curcuminoids might reduce inflammation by scavenging free radicals and inhibiting enzymes that make prostaglandins, Silva said.
Turmeric is the most popular herbal supplement for people with RA, according to Funk’s research. A study review of six publications including 539 patients in Frontiers in Immunology showed that curcumin supplements improved RA patients’ ESR, DAS, swollen joint count, and tender joint count. Turmeric could help patients with OA, too. Patients with OA who took 1000 mg/d of curcumin improved their pain and function, according to a systematic review including 12 studies and 1438 participants in the journal Nutrients. In lupus, small studies are promising but inconclusive, suggested a study review in Frontiers in Immunology.
Watch patients taking turmeric and methotrexate closely, Funk said. Both have been associated with liver problems. Some users also experience GI symptoms like diarrhea because turmeric doesn’t absorb well in the GI tract.
Milk thistle (silymarin). This flowering plant is often marketed as a liver-supporting supplement, but research also suggests promise in RA and OA. A systematic review of 12 studies in Current Rheumatology Reviews suggested that silymarin supplements might help relieve pain, reduce inflammation, and protect the cartilage matrix, synovial membrane, and cartilage cells in joints. This supplement might help via immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anti-apoptotic properties, the researchers said. Doses of 250-750 mg appear to be safe. Side effects such as gastroenteritis, diarrhea, bloating, and headache can occur.
Boswellia serrata. Sourced from the resin of a tree that grows in dry, mountainous regions of Asia and Africa, Boswellia serrata can help relieve joint pain and stiffness and improve joint function in OA, suggested a systematic review of seven trials involving 545 patients in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies. Users saw benefits when taking 100-250 mg/d for 4 weeks or more. Compounds in Boswellia serrata may inhibit 5-lipoxygenase, an enzyme involved in producing inflammatory leukotrienes. No adverse events were reported. In some studies, users have reported GI side effects.
Ginger. Ginger is a popular herbal supplement among people with RA, Funk’s research suggested. One small clinical trial involving 70 patients with RA in the journal Gene showed that taking 1500 mg/d of ginger for 12 weeks improved their DAS and boosted their expression of FoxP3 genes, which are linked with the function of regulatory T cells. A meta-analysis including three studies with 330 patients taking ginger published in the journal Nutrients suggested ginger can reduce pain and systemic inflammation in people with OA. Preclinical studies suggested phenolic compounds in this spicy root, such as gingerols, reduce inflammation through multiple mechanisms.
Funk’s research revealed wide variation in the quality of ginger supplements, reinforcing the importance of selecting an independently verified product. Research suggested a safe dose is up to 2-2.5 g/kg body weight.
Resveratrol. Found in red grapes and red wine, this compound is particularly good at blocking COX-2 enzymes, an important step in the inflammatory cascade, Silva said. “Because of their chemical structure, they have great affinity to these enzymes to lead to their inhibition,” he said. A study review of five articles including 481 patients in The European Journal of Rheumatology showed that people with OA, RA, or Takayasu arteritis who took 250-1000 mg/d of resveratrol saw improvements in pain, function, disease activity, joint swelling, and inflammation, with no side effects.
Cinnamon. This warming spice is gaining popularity as a supplement, reported the American Botanical Council. Cinnamon is often marketed as lowering blood sugar and supporting bone health. In a small study of 36 women with RA published in The Journal of the American College of Nutrition, participants who consumed 2 g/d of cinnamon powder had reduced DASs along with reduced pain and tender and swollen joint counts. Cinnamon may reduce pain by inhibiting prostaglandin and blunt inflammation by reducing the release of arachidonic acid from cell membranes, according to a study review in Frontiers in Pharmacology. GI problems and allergic reactions are among the most common side effects.
Funk, Nikiphorou, Philippou, and Silva all had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Minor Progress in Gender Pay Equity, But a Big Gap Persists
Despite some recent progress in compensation equity, women in medicine continue to be paid significantly lower salaries than men.
According to the Female Compensation Report 2024 by Medscape, male doctors of any kind earned an average salary of about $400,000, whereas female doctors earned approximately $309,000 — a 29% gap.
The report analyzed survey data from 7000 practicing physicians who were recruited over a 4-month period starting in October 2023. The respondents comprised roughly 60% women representing over 29 specialties.
In the 2022 report, the pay gap between the genders was 32%. But some women in the field argued substantial headway is still needed.
“You can try and pick apart the data, but I’d say we’re not really making progress,” said Susan T. Hingle, MD, an internist in Illinois and president of the American Medical Women’s Association. “A decline by a couple of percentage points is not significantly addressing this pay gap that over a lifetime is huge, can be millions of dollars.”
The gender gap was narrower among female primary care physicians (PCPs) vs medical specialists. Female PCPs earned around $253,000 per year, whereas male PCPs earned about $295,000 per year. Hingle suggested that female PCPs may enjoy more pay equity because health systems have a harder time filling these positions.
On the other hand, the gap for specialists rose from 27% in 2022 to 31% in 2023. Differences in how aggressively women and men negotiate compensation packages may play a role, said Hingle.
“Taking negotiation out of the equation would be progress to me,” said Hingle.
Pay disparity did not appear to be the result of time spent on the job — female doctors reported an average of 49 work hours per week, whereas their male counterparts reported 50 work hours per week.
Meanwhile, the pay gap progressively worsened over time. Among doctors aged 28-34 years, men earned an average of $53,000 more than women. By ages 46-49, men earned an average of $157,000 more than women.
“I had to take my employer to court to get equal compensation, sad as it is to say,” said a hospitalist in North Carolina.
Nearly 60% of women surveyed felt they were not being paid fairly for their efforts, up from less than half reported in Medscape’s 2021 report. Hingle said that this figure may not only reflect sentiments about the compensation gap, but also less support on the job, including fewer physician assistants (PAs), nurses, and administrative staff.
“At my job, I do the work of multiple people,” said a survey respondent. “Junior resident, senior resident, social worker, nurse practitioner, PA — as well as try to be a teacher, researcher, [and] an excellent doctor and have the time to make patients feel as if they are not in a rush.”
Roughly 30% of women physicians said they would not choose to go into medicine again if given the chance compared with 26% of male physicians.
“Gender inequities in our profession have a direct impact,” said Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist in Chicago and founder of the Women in Medicine nonprofit. “I think women in general don’t feel valued in the care they’re providing.”
Jain cited bullying, harassment, and fewer opportunities for leadership and recognition as factors beyond pay that affect female physicians’ feelings of being valued.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite some recent progress in compensation equity, women in medicine continue to be paid significantly lower salaries than men.
According to the Female Compensation Report 2024 by Medscape, male doctors of any kind earned an average salary of about $400,000, whereas female doctors earned approximately $309,000 — a 29% gap.
The report analyzed survey data from 7000 practicing physicians who were recruited over a 4-month period starting in October 2023. The respondents comprised roughly 60% women representing over 29 specialties.
In the 2022 report, the pay gap between the genders was 32%. But some women in the field argued substantial headway is still needed.
“You can try and pick apart the data, but I’d say we’re not really making progress,” said Susan T. Hingle, MD, an internist in Illinois and president of the American Medical Women’s Association. “A decline by a couple of percentage points is not significantly addressing this pay gap that over a lifetime is huge, can be millions of dollars.”
The gender gap was narrower among female primary care physicians (PCPs) vs medical specialists. Female PCPs earned around $253,000 per year, whereas male PCPs earned about $295,000 per year. Hingle suggested that female PCPs may enjoy more pay equity because health systems have a harder time filling these positions.
On the other hand, the gap for specialists rose from 27% in 2022 to 31% in 2023. Differences in how aggressively women and men negotiate compensation packages may play a role, said Hingle.
“Taking negotiation out of the equation would be progress to me,” said Hingle.
Pay disparity did not appear to be the result of time spent on the job — female doctors reported an average of 49 work hours per week, whereas their male counterparts reported 50 work hours per week.
Meanwhile, the pay gap progressively worsened over time. Among doctors aged 28-34 years, men earned an average of $53,000 more than women. By ages 46-49, men earned an average of $157,000 more than women.
“I had to take my employer to court to get equal compensation, sad as it is to say,” said a hospitalist in North Carolina.
Nearly 60% of women surveyed felt they were not being paid fairly for their efforts, up from less than half reported in Medscape’s 2021 report. Hingle said that this figure may not only reflect sentiments about the compensation gap, but also less support on the job, including fewer physician assistants (PAs), nurses, and administrative staff.
“At my job, I do the work of multiple people,” said a survey respondent. “Junior resident, senior resident, social worker, nurse practitioner, PA — as well as try to be a teacher, researcher, [and] an excellent doctor and have the time to make patients feel as if they are not in a rush.”
Roughly 30% of women physicians said they would not choose to go into medicine again if given the chance compared with 26% of male physicians.
“Gender inequities in our profession have a direct impact,” said Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist in Chicago and founder of the Women in Medicine nonprofit. “I think women in general don’t feel valued in the care they’re providing.”
Jain cited bullying, harassment, and fewer opportunities for leadership and recognition as factors beyond pay that affect female physicians’ feelings of being valued.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite some recent progress in compensation equity, women in medicine continue to be paid significantly lower salaries than men.
According to the Female Compensation Report 2024 by Medscape, male doctors of any kind earned an average salary of about $400,000, whereas female doctors earned approximately $309,000 — a 29% gap.
The report analyzed survey data from 7000 practicing physicians who were recruited over a 4-month period starting in October 2023. The respondents comprised roughly 60% women representing over 29 specialties.
In the 2022 report, the pay gap between the genders was 32%. But some women in the field argued substantial headway is still needed.
“You can try and pick apart the data, but I’d say we’re not really making progress,” said Susan T. Hingle, MD, an internist in Illinois and president of the American Medical Women’s Association. “A decline by a couple of percentage points is not significantly addressing this pay gap that over a lifetime is huge, can be millions of dollars.”
The gender gap was narrower among female primary care physicians (PCPs) vs medical specialists. Female PCPs earned around $253,000 per year, whereas male PCPs earned about $295,000 per year. Hingle suggested that female PCPs may enjoy more pay equity because health systems have a harder time filling these positions.
On the other hand, the gap for specialists rose from 27% in 2022 to 31% in 2023. Differences in how aggressively women and men negotiate compensation packages may play a role, said Hingle.
“Taking negotiation out of the equation would be progress to me,” said Hingle.
Pay disparity did not appear to be the result of time spent on the job — female doctors reported an average of 49 work hours per week, whereas their male counterparts reported 50 work hours per week.
Meanwhile, the pay gap progressively worsened over time. Among doctors aged 28-34 years, men earned an average of $53,000 more than women. By ages 46-49, men earned an average of $157,000 more than women.
“I had to take my employer to court to get equal compensation, sad as it is to say,” said a hospitalist in North Carolina.
Nearly 60% of women surveyed felt they were not being paid fairly for their efforts, up from less than half reported in Medscape’s 2021 report. Hingle said that this figure may not only reflect sentiments about the compensation gap, but also less support on the job, including fewer physician assistants (PAs), nurses, and administrative staff.
“At my job, I do the work of multiple people,” said a survey respondent. “Junior resident, senior resident, social worker, nurse practitioner, PA — as well as try to be a teacher, researcher, [and] an excellent doctor and have the time to make patients feel as if they are not in a rush.”
Roughly 30% of women physicians said they would not choose to go into medicine again if given the chance compared with 26% of male physicians.
“Gender inequities in our profession have a direct impact,” said Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist in Chicago and founder of the Women in Medicine nonprofit. “I think women in general don’t feel valued in the care they’re providing.”
Jain cited bullying, harassment, and fewer opportunities for leadership and recognition as factors beyond pay that affect female physicians’ feelings of being valued.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Which Specialists Should Lead BP Control Efforts?
Current efforts to control high blood pressure (BP) are failing in the United States and globally.
The first World Health Organization (WHO) global report on hypertension found that only 54% of adults with hypertension are diagnosed, 42% get treatment, and just 21% have their hypertension controlled.
In the United States, almost half (48%) of adults have high BP, defined as a systolic BP > 130 mm Hg, or a diastolic BP > 80 mm Hg, or are taking medication for high BP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about one in four adults (22.5%) with high BP have their BP under control.
High BP is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, and the problem of controlling it is only getting worse. In 2024, the American Heart Association estimates that, “among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050.”
Pharmacists Most Effective
Though many factors contribute to hypertension, researchers have found that the kind of specialist leading the hypertension team may play a role in success. Currently, most BP control teams are led by physicians in primary care.
In a recent meta-analysis involving 100 randomized controlled trials and more than 90,000 patients in Circulation, Katherine T. Mills, PhD, School of Public Health, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and colleagues found that, while all the groups studied who led BP control efforts were successful in reducing BP, pharmacist- and community health worker–led teams saw the biggest reductions.
Those groups’ efforts resulted in the greatest systolic BP drops: −7.3 mm Hg (pharmacists) and −7.1 mm Hg (community health workers). Groups led by nurses and physicians saw systolic changes of −3 and −2.4 mm Hg, respectively.
Similarly, pharmacist- and community health worker–led efforts saw the greatest diastolic BP reductions (−3.8 and −3.1 mm Hg), compared with nurse-led (−1.6) and physician-led (−1.2) efforts.
Reductions Enough to Cut Cardiovascular Disease Risk
The reduction numbers for pharmacists are clinically meaningful, Mills said in an interview. “It’s greater than a lot of what we see from individual lifestyle changes,” such as reducing sodium intake or increasing physical activity.
“It’s a big enough blood pressure change to have meaningful reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease,” she said.
This evidence that the leader of the team matters is particularly important because the treatment of hypertension is not in doubt. Something else is not working the way it should.
“We have basically all the scientific evidence we need in terms of what interventions work. But there’s a big gap between that and what’s actually being done in the real world,” she said.
Mills said she was not surprised that pharmacists got the best results “because so much of it has to do with titrating medications and finding the right kind of medications for each patient.”
Additionally, BP management and control falls right into pharmacists’ wheelhouse, Mills noted, including evaluating medication side effects and talking to patients about medication adherence.
Why Pharmacists May Be More Successful
In an accompanying editorial, Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, with the EPICORE Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and coauthors said the Mills study provides further data to support pharmacists leading BP control efforts, but it’s not the data that have been keeping the model from changing. The barriers include turf wars and lack of legislative change.
The editorialists also said having pharmacist-led BP teams is only the first step. “We need pharmacists to independently prescribe,” they wrote.
“Since individual states govern the scope of practice of pharmacists,” the editorialists wrote, “we have the enormous task of changing regulations to allow pharmacists to independently prescribe for hypertension. But it can be done. The Canadian province of Alberta allows pharmacists to prescribe. And more recently, Idaho. While most states allow some sort of collaborative (dependent) prescribing, that is only a first step.”
Allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe will help populations who do not have a physician or can’t get access to a physician, the editorialists wrote. But changing state legislation would be a lengthy and complex effort.
Physician-Led BP Control Model ‘Seems to Fail Miserably’
Coauthor of the editorial, Florian Rader, MD, MSc, medical director of the Hypertension Center of Excellence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said in an interview that, currently, physician-led teams are the norm, “and that model seems to fail miserably.”
He offered several key reasons for that. In primary care, patients with hypertension often have other problems — they may have high cholesterol or diabetes. “They may have acute illnesses that bother them as well as hypertension that doesn’t bother them,” he said.
Physicians tend to find excuses not to increase or add BP medications, Rader said. “We tend then to blame ‘white coat effect’ or say ‘you’re just nervous today.’ ”
Pharmacists, comparatively, are more protocol driven, he said. “They essentially look at blood pressure and they have an algorithm in their mind. If the blood pressure hits the guideline-stated bar, start this medication. If it hits another bar, increase or add another medication.”
Rader said turf wars are also keeping physician-led teams from changing, fueled by fears that patients will seek care from pharmacists instead of physicians.
“I don’t think the pharmacists will steal a single patient,” Rader said. “If a physician had a healthcare partner like a pharmacist to optimize blood pressure, then [patients] come back to the physician with normalized BP on the right medications. I think it’s a total win-win. I think we just have to get over that.”
Pharmacist-led warfarin clinics are very well established, Rader said, “but for whatever reason, when it comes to blood pressure, physicians are a little bit more hesitant.”
Collaboration Yes, Independent No
Hypertension expert Donald J. DiPette, MD, Health Sciences Distinguished Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of South Carolina, Columbia, said he completely agrees with Mills and colleagues’ conclusion. “Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.”
The conclusion “is in line with the thinking of major organizations,” said DiPette, who helped develop the WHO’s most recent pharmacological treatment of hypertension guidelines. “WHO suggests that pharmacological treatment of hypertension can be provided by nonphysician professionals such as pharmacists and nurses as long as the following conditions are met: Proper training, prescribing authority, specific management protocols, and physician oversight.”
DiPette strongly believes BP control efforts should be supervised by a physician, but that could come in different ways. He suggested a collaborative but physician-supervised development of a protocol. Everyone contributes, but the physician signs off on it.
As for the Idaho example of independent practice for pharmacists, DiPette said he doesn’t think that will make a big difference in control rates. “That’s still not team-based care.”
Community Health Workers Key
He said he was also glad to see community healthcare workers emerge as the next-most-effective group after pharmacists to lead BP control teams. This is particularly important as BP control efforts globally need to consider the cultural experience of individual communities. “The community worker is on the ground, and can help overcome some of the cultural barriers,” he said.
“The key is to focus on team-based care and moving away from silo practice,” DiPette said.
Physicians, he said, often fall into “clinical or therapeutic inertia,” where BP is concerned. “We fail to titrate or add additional hypertensive medications even when they’re clearly indicated by the blood pressure. This is a problem not with the individual patient or the healthcare system, this is on us as physicians.”
Nonphysicians are more aligned with following protocols and guidelines, irrespective of the dynamics of what’s going on, he said.
And following protocols rigidly is a good thing for hypertension. “We’re not overtreating hypertension,” he emphasized. “We’re undertreating it.”
Reversing the trend on hypertension will take a sea change in medicine — changing institutions, systems, and individuals who have been doing things the same way for decades, he said.
“Our hypertension control rates are dismal,” DiPette said. “What’s more alarming is they’re going down. That’s the urgency. That’s the burning platform. We must strongly consider doing something different.”
Tsuyuki has received investigator-initiated arm’s length research grants from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. He has been a speaker/consultant for Merck, Emergent BioSolutions, and Shoppers Drug Mart/Loblaw Companies Limited. Rader has been a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Idorsia, Medtronic, and ReCor Medical. Mills and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed WHO guidelines on hypertension.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Current efforts to control high blood pressure (BP) are failing in the United States and globally.
The first World Health Organization (WHO) global report on hypertension found that only 54% of adults with hypertension are diagnosed, 42% get treatment, and just 21% have their hypertension controlled.
In the United States, almost half (48%) of adults have high BP, defined as a systolic BP > 130 mm Hg, or a diastolic BP > 80 mm Hg, or are taking medication for high BP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about one in four adults (22.5%) with high BP have their BP under control.
High BP is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, and the problem of controlling it is only getting worse. In 2024, the American Heart Association estimates that, “among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050.”
Pharmacists Most Effective
Though many factors contribute to hypertension, researchers have found that the kind of specialist leading the hypertension team may play a role in success. Currently, most BP control teams are led by physicians in primary care.
In a recent meta-analysis involving 100 randomized controlled trials and more than 90,000 patients in Circulation, Katherine T. Mills, PhD, School of Public Health, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and colleagues found that, while all the groups studied who led BP control efforts were successful in reducing BP, pharmacist- and community health worker–led teams saw the biggest reductions.
Those groups’ efforts resulted in the greatest systolic BP drops: −7.3 mm Hg (pharmacists) and −7.1 mm Hg (community health workers). Groups led by nurses and physicians saw systolic changes of −3 and −2.4 mm Hg, respectively.
Similarly, pharmacist- and community health worker–led efforts saw the greatest diastolic BP reductions (−3.8 and −3.1 mm Hg), compared with nurse-led (−1.6) and physician-led (−1.2) efforts.
Reductions Enough to Cut Cardiovascular Disease Risk
The reduction numbers for pharmacists are clinically meaningful, Mills said in an interview. “It’s greater than a lot of what we see from individual lifestyle changes,” such as reducing sodium intake or increasing physical activity.
“It’s a big enough blood pressure change to have meaningful reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease,” she said.
This evidence that the leader of the team matters is particularly important because the treatment of hypertension is not in doubt. Something else is not working the way it should.
“We have basically all the scientific evidence we need in terms of what interventions work. But there’s a big gap between that and what’s actually being done in the real world,” she said.
Mills said she was not surprised that pharmacists got the best results “because so much of it has to do with titrating medications and finding the right kind of medications for each patient.”
Additionally, BP management and control falls right into pharmacists’ wheelhouse, Mills noted, including evaluating medication side effects and talking to patients about medication adherence.
Why Pharmacists May Be More Successful
In an accompanying editorial, Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, with the EPICORE Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and coauthors said the Mills study provides further data to support pharmacists leading BP control efforts, but it’s not the data that have been keeping the model from changing. The barriers include turf wars and lack of legislative change.
The editorialists also said having pharmacist-led BP teams is only the first step. “We need pharmacists to independently prescribe,” they wrote.
“Since individual states govern the scope of practice of pharmacists,” the editorialists wrote, “we have the enormous task of changing regulations to allow pharmacists to independently prescribe for hypertension. But it can be done. The Canadian province of Alberta allows pharmacists to prescribe. And more recently, Idaho. While most states allow some sort of collaborative (dependent) prescribing, that is only a first step.”
Allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe will help populations who do not have a physician or can’t get access to a physician, the editorialists wrote. But changing state legislation would be a lengthy and complex effort.
Physician-Led BP Control Model ‘Seems to Fail Miserably’
Coauthor of the editorial, Florian Rader, MD, MSc, medical director of the Hypertension Center of Excellence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said in an interview that, currently, physician-led teams are the norm, “and that model seems to fail miserably.”
He offered several key reasons for that. In primary care, patients with hypertension often have other problems — they may have high cholesterol or diabetes. “They may have acute illnesses that bother them as well as hypertension that doesn’t bother them,” he said.
Physicians tend to find excuses not to increase or add BP medications, Rader said. “We tend then to blame ‘white coat effect’ or say ‘you’re just nervous today.’ ”
Pharmacists, comparatively, are more protocol driven, he said. “They essentially look at blood pressure and they have an algorithm in their mind. If the blood pressure hits the guideline-stated bar, start this medication. If it hits another bar, increase or add another medication.”
Rader said turf wars are also keeping physician-led teams from changing, fueled by fears that patients will seek care from pharmacists instead of physicians.
“I don’t think the pharmacists will steal a single patient,” Rader said. “If a physician had a healthcare partner like a pharmacist to optimize blood pressure, then [patients] come back to the physician with normalized BP on the right medications. I think it’s a total win-win. I think we just have to get over that.”
Pharmacist-led warfarin clinics are very well established, Rader said, “but for whatever reason, when it comes to blood pressure, physicians are a little bit more hesitant.”
Collaboration Yes, Independent No
Hypertension expert Donald J. DiPette, MD, Health Sciences Distinguished Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of South Carolina, Columbia, said he completely agrees with Mills and colleagues’ conclusion. “Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.”
The conclusion “is in line with the thinking of major organizations,” said DiPette, who helped develop the WHO’s most recent pharmacological treatment of hypertension guidelines. “WHO suggests that pharmacological treatment of hypertension can be provided by nonphysician professionals such as pharmacists and nurses as long as the following conditions are met: Proper training, prescribing authority, specific management protocols, and physician oversight.”
DiPette strongly believes BP control efforts should be supervised by a physician, but that could come in different ways. He suggested a collaborative but physician-supervised development of a protocol. Everyone contributes, but the physician signs off on it.
As for the Idaho example of independent practice for pharmacists, DiPette said he doesn’t think that will make a big difference in control rates. “That’s still not team-based care.”
Community Health Workers Key
He said he was also glad to see community healthcare workers emerge as the next-most-effective group after pharmacists to lead BP control teams. This is particularly important as BP control efforts globally need to consider the cultural experience of individual communities. “The community worker is on the ground, and can help overcome some of the cultural barriers,” he said.
“The key is to focus on team-based care and moving away from silo practice,” DiPette said.
Physicians, he said, often fall into “clinical or therapeutic inertia,” where BP is concerned. “We fail to titrate or add additional hypertensive medications even when they’re clearly indicated by the blood pressure. This is a problem not with the individual patient or the healthcare system, this is on us as physicians.”
Nonphysicians are more aligned with following protocols and guidelines, irrespective of the dynamics of what’s going on, he said.
And following protocols rigidly is a good thing for hypertension. “We’re not overtreating hypertension,” he emphasized. “We’re undertreating it.”
Reversing the trend on hypertension will take a sea change in medicine — changing institutions, systems, and individuals who have been doing things the same way for decades, he said.
“Our hypertension control rates are dismal,” DiPette said. “What’s more alarming is they’re going down. That’s the urgency. That’s the burning platform. We must strongly consider doing something different.”
Tsuyuki has received investigator-initiated arm’s length research grants from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. He has been a speaker/consultant for Merck, Emergent BioSolutions, and Shoppers Drug Mart/Loblaw Companies Limited. Rader has been a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Idorsia, Medtronic, and ReCor Medical. Mills and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed WHO guidelines on hypertension.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Current efforts to control high blood pressure (BP) are failing in the United States and globally.
The first World Health Organization (WHO) global report on hypertension found that only 54% of adults with hypertension are diagnosed, 42% get treatment, and just 21% have their hypertension controlled.
In the United States, almost half (48%) of adults have high BP, defined as a systolic BP > 130 mm Hg, or a diastolic BP > 80 mm Hg, or are taking medication for high BP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about one in four adults (22.5%) with high BP have their BP under control.
High BP is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, and the problem of controlling it is only getting worse. In 2024, the American Heart Association estimates that, “among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050.”
Pharmacists Most Effective
Though many factors contribute to hypertension, researchers have found that the kind of specialist leading the hypertension team may play a role in success. Currently, most BP control teams are led by physicians in primary care.
In a recent meta-analysis involving 100 randomized controlled trials and more than 90,000 patients in Circulation, Katherine T. Mills, PhD, School of Public Health, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and colleagues found that, while all the groups studied who led BP control efforts were successful in reducing BP, pharmacist- and community health worker–led teams saw the biggest reductions.
Those groups’ efforts resulted in the greatest systolic BP drops: −7.3 mm Hg (pharmacists) and −7.1 mm Hg (community health workers). Groups led by nurses and physicians saw systolic changes of −3 and −2.4 mm Hg, respectively.
Similarly, pharmacist- and community health worker–led efforts saw the greatest diastolic BP reductions (−3.8 and −3.1 mm Hg), compared with nurse-led (−1.6) and physician-led (−1.2) efforts.
Reductions Enough to Cut Cardiovascular Disease Risk
The reduction numbers for pharmacists are clinically meaningful, Mills said in an interview. “It’s greater than a lot of what we see from individual lifestyle changes,” such as reducing sodium intake or increasing physical activity.
“It’s a big enough blood pressure change to have meaningful reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease,” she said.
This evidence that the leader of the team matters is particularly important because the treatment of hypertension is not in doubt. Something else is not working the way it should.
“We have basically all the scientific evidence we need in terms of what interventions work. But there’s a big gap between that and what’s actually being done in the real world,” she said.
Mills said she was not surprised that pharmacists got the best results “because so much of it has to do with titrating medications and finding the right kind of medications for each patient.”
Additionally, BP management and control falls right into pharmacists’ wheelhouse, Mills noted, including evaluating medication side effects and talking to patients about medication adherence.
Why Pharmacists May Be More Successful
In an accompanying editorial, Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, with the EPICORE Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and coauthors said the Mills study provides further data to support pharmacists leading BP control efforts, but it’s not the data that have been keeping the model from changing. The barriers include turf wars and lack of legislative change.
The editorialists also said having pharmacist-led BP teams is only the first step. “We need pharmacists to independently prescribe,” they wrote.
“Since individual states govern the scope of practice of pharmacists,” the editorialists wrote, “we have the enormous task of changing regulations to allow pharmacists to independently prescribe for hypertension. But it can be done. The Canadian province of Alberta allows pharmacists to prescribe. And more recently, Idaho. While most states allow some sort of collaborative (dependent) prescribing, that is only a first step.”
Allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe will help populations who do not have a physician or can’t get access to a physician, the editorialists wrote. But changing state legislation would be a lengthy and complex effort.
Physician-Led BP Control Model ‘Seems to Fail Miserably’
Coauthor of the editorial, Florian Rader, MD, MSc, medical director of the Hypertension Center of Excellence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said in an interview that, currently, physician-led teams are the norm, “and that model seems to fail miserably.”
He offered several key reasons for that. In primary care, patients with hypertension often have other problems — they may have high cholesterol or diabetes. “They may have acute illnesses that bother them as well as hypertension that doesn’t bother them,” he said.
Physicians tend to find excuses not to increase or add BP medications, Rader said. “We tend then to blame ‘white coat effect’ or say ‘you’re just nervous today.’ ”
Pharmacists, comparatively, are more protocol driven, he said. “They essentially look at blood pressure and they have an algorithm in their mind. If the blood pressure hits the guideline-stated bar, start this medication. If it hits another bar, increase or add another medication.”
Rader said turf wars are also keeping physician-led teams from changing, fueled by fears that patients will seek care from pharmacists instead of physicians.
“I don’t think the pharmacists will steal a single patient,” Rader said. “If a physician had a healthcare partner like a pharmacist to optimize blood pressure, then [patients] come back to the physician with normalized BP on the right medications. I think it’s a total win-win. I think we just have to get over that.”
Pharmacist-led warfarin clinics are very well established, Rader said, “but for whatever reason, when it comes to blood pressure, physicians are a little bit more hesitant.”
Collaboration Yes, Independent No
Hypertension expert Donald J. DiPette, MD, Health Sciences Distinguished Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of South Carolina, Columbia, said he completely agrees with Mills and colleagues’ conclusion. “Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.”
The conclusion “is in line with the thinking of major organizations,” said DiPette, who helped develop the WHO’s most recent pharmacological treatment of hypertension guidelines. “WHO suggests that pharmacological treatment of hypertension can be provided by nonphysician professionals such as pharmacists and nurses as long as the following conditions are met: Proper training, prescribing authority, specific management protocols, and physician oversight.”
DiPette strongly believes BP control efforts should be supervised by a physician, but that could come in different ways. He suggested a collaborative but physician-supervised development of a protocol. Everyone contributes, but the physician signs off on it.
As for the Idaho example of independent practice for pharmacists, DiPette said he doesn’t think that will make a big difference in control rates. “That’s still not team-based care.”
Community Health Workers Key
He said he was also glad to see community healthcare workers emerge as the next-most-effective group after pharmacists to lead BP control teams. This is particularly important as BP control efforts globally need to consider the cultural experience of individual communities. “The community worker is on the ground, and can help overcome some of the cultural barriers,” he said.
“The key is to focus on team-based care and moving away from silo practice,” DiPette said.
Physicians, he said, often fall into “clinical or therapeutic inertia,” where BP is concerned. “We fail to titrate or add additional hypertensive medications even when they’re clearly indicated by the blood pressure. This is a problem not with the individual patient or the healthcare system, this is on us as physicians.”
Nonphysicians are more aligned with following protocols and guidelines, irrespective of the dynamics of what’s going on, he said.
And following protocols rigidly is a good thing for hypertension. “We’re not overtreating hypertension,” he emphasized. “We’re undertreating it.”
Reversing the trend on hypertension will take a sea change in medicine — changing institutions, systems, and individuals who have been doing things the same way for decades, he said.
“Our hypertension control rates are dismal,” DiPette said. “What’s more alarming is they’re going down. That’s the urgency. That’s the burning platform. We must strongly consider doing something different.”
Tsuyuki has received investigator-initiated arm’s length research grants from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. He has been a speaker/consultant for Merck, Emergent BioSolutions, and Shoppers Drug Mart/Loblaw Companies Limited. Rader has been a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Idorsia, Medtronic, and ReCor Medical. Mills and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed WHO guidelines on hypertension.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Pediatrician’s Role in Suicide Prevention
When she was 5 years old, Katherine Edson, LCSW, tried to end her life by drowning herself. “I was enduring severe physical and sexual abuse, and it had become unbearable,” she said. “I waded into a lake, knowing there was a point when it would become too deep and I’d go under.”
As she was walking toward the deeper water, it occurred to her that if she died, she wouldn’t be able to eat Rice Krispies again. “I thought, ‘no more Snap, Crackle, and Pop’ — the three little mascots on the cereal box — and I felt sad,” said Edson, a New York–based retired therapist. “But I still kept walking.”
A man on the shore saw her disappear under the water and pulled her out. “I remember vomiting a lot of water and I remember that the man had tattoos, but I don’t remember how I felt to be alive. I was just numb.”
Edson thinks there were clues her pediatrician missed. “We lived in a small Southern town. Everyone knew my parents were alcoholics. I was very dissociated and withdrawn in general and during pediatric visits. My affect broadcasted that something was wrong, but no one asked if I was okay.”
She acknowledged that professionals in those days “weren’t tuned in to mental health issues in kids. At least there’s more awareness today and hopefully more training — especially since it seems like more kids are trying to end their lives today than when I was growing up.”
Alarming Statistics
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), suicide is the second leading cause of death for people aged 10-24 years. Data from Children’s Hospital Association’s Pediatric Health Information System revealed that suicide attempts, ideation, and self-injury have become the most common mental health conditions seen in the emergency departments (EDs) of children’s hospitals, with a 166% increase in ED visits for suicide attempts in children aged 5-18 years, between 2016 and 2022.
Psychiatrist Helen Egger, MD, chief medical officer and co-founder of Little Otter, a specialty pediatric and whole family digital mental health company, recently coauthored a report analyzing data on 1434 children who completed a screening session and comprehensive diagnostic assessment at Little Otter from May 2023 to February 2024 (n = 1016 children aged 8-14 years and n = 418 aged 3-7 years).
Almost one fifth of the older children presented with current positive suicide risk (suicidal ideation and/or behavior in the last month), while 6% of the younger age group presented with current suicide risk. The youngest was 5 years old.
Points of Contact
“It’s known that most children who die by suicide had a recent visit with a health professional — a pediatrician or child mental health professional. It’s unlikely that the child was fine and then, a few weeks later, stopped being fine. The likelihood is that the child wasn’t fine during that visit, but the clinician didn’t ask about mental health,” Egger said.
Christine Crawford, MD, MPH, associate medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), said that “When you’re working with kids, anything can come up. Be prepared to navigate the conversation. You can never predict who the patient will feel most comfortable disclosing these thoughts to.”
Pediatricians are the physicians most likely to be seen by children, and it’s important for pediatricians to inquire about a child’s mood, especially during child visits, according to Crawford, author of the book You Are Not Alone for Parents and Caregivers: The NAMI Guide to Navigating Your Child’s Mental Health.
Donald E. Greydanus, MD, professor and founding chair, Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, said many fellow pediatricians have said the highly compressed exam doesn’t allow enough time to ask questions. “But pediatricians must find a way to make time,” he said. “Asking about depression and potential suicidality is top priority and can help keep your patients alive.”
Some pediatricians have told him, “I’m not prepared to provide counseling.” But “your role isn’t to provide counseling, just to open the conversation, offer hope, and direct the youngster to resources that can help.”
Don’t Be Afraid to Ask
According to the AAP, all children aged 12 years or older should be screened for suicidal risk, and children aged 8-11 years should be screened “when clinically indicated.” AAP also recommends annual screening for depression in children aged 12 years or older. However, Egger thinks that screening for depression should start sooner.
It can be tempting to screen by merely giving a youngster a form to fill out in the waiting room, but Greydanus strongly advises against this approach. “The important thing is having rapport with the child, being in the same room together. You can ask some simple questions. ‘How are you doing? How are things at school? How are things with your family?’”
“When you’re screening for depression and have a kid who’s talking about sadness or low mood for more than 2 weeks and endorsing other symptoms, such as problems with sleep or appetite, difficulty concentrating, anhedonia, losing interest in things they’d usually enjoy, feeling they’re a burden to others, hopelessness about the future, being unable to function the way they used to — that person meets criteria for depression and you should have a high suspicion and concern about potential suicide,” said Crawford, assistant professor of psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine.
She suggested probing further and being direct. “It sounds like you’ve been having a tough time. You talk about being sad. I wonder if you’re feeling so sad that you might not want to be alive anymore.” Some healthcare providers “tiptoe around when it comes to suicide, but it’s better to be direct and communicate the question in simple, plain language: ‘Have you ever had thoughts about hurting or killing yourself, that life is no longer worth living, or life would be easier for your family if you weren’t alive?’”
It’s a common myth that asking about depression or suicidality will “plant a seed” or “put ideas in people’s heads,” potentially leading to suicidality. “What we know to be true is that asking about suicide doesn’t put lives at risk. In fact, the contrary is true,” according to Crawford. Several studies have refuted this myth.
Two screening tools that might be helpful in ascertaining the presence of depression and suicidality are the PHQ-9 modified for Adolescents and the four-question Ask Suicide-Screening Questions.
Probe for More Details
If a child or adolescent affirms suicidal ideation, it’s important to ask if they have a plan, Crawford advised. “If they say, ‘yes,’ don’t run out of the office or shut down the conversation by picking up the phone and calling the closest child psychiatrist. We want kids to open up as much as possible when they’ve already opened up a little. So continue the conversation.”
If a child has a plan, the risk for following through on that plan is “high,” Crawford emphasized. “You want the maximum amount of information at your fingertips because this will equip you to navigate the next step in getting the child help.”
The suicide plan may not be realistic and, if carried out, might not actually end in death, especially in younger children. “A 6-year-old might say, ‘I’m gonna drink a whole bottle of apple juice and my belly will explode.’ Or ‘I’ll take 10 extra vitamins.’ The objective lethality of the plan doesn’t matter in that moment. What matters is that the child believes it’s going to work, and it provides a window into how depressed that child is.”
Greydanus added that it’s important to understand what might be going on in the child’s life. Could there be abuse in the family? Is the child being bullied? Bullying can take place at school or online, he noted. The overall risk for suicidal thoughts is elevated for youth who are involved in bullying, whether they’re the bully or the one being bullied.
Kirk Smalley, president and co-founder of Stand for the Silent, an organization designed to bring awareness about the devastating effects of bullying, agreed that pediatricians a should ask children if they’re being bullied. “Sometimes, kids will open up to someone who isn’t a parent or a teacher, who might be seen as ‘too close’ to the situation,” Smalley said.
“Let them know you’re a trusted adult they can confide in and you’re willing to help them navigate this — and then follow through,” advised Smalley, whose 11-year-old son died by suicide after being subjected to bullying.
Painting a Complete Picture
Crawford advises clinicians to “look at the whole picture and piece it together.”
For example, “if the child is functioning, going to school, maintaining relationships with other people, and not experiencing symptoms of depression but discloses the desire to kill him/herself, understand the context.” Sometimes, adolescents can be impulsive. Decision-making “can be driven by emotion.” The teen may have experienced emotional distress, such as “conflict with a peer, arguments with a parent, or romantic heartbreak. She might say, ‘I’m going to kill myself if I ever see him holding hands with another girl.’”
In the setting of an acute stressor, such as a breakup, the child might not need a higher level of care such as hospitalization. “But for non-psychiatry providers, it’s unclear if the child might act on it, so it’s important to have the child evaluated; talk to collateral supports, such as parents, teachers, or a therapist if they have one; and see what makes sense for that specific child.”
She also recommended “getting a sense if the kid is future-oriented in thinking. If they’re talking about an upcoming concert this weekend, or wanting to get to basketball practice, that’s reassuring. It suggests the likelihood of following through [on suicide] is low.”
And assess coping strategies. “You can say, ‘I see you’re really going through a lot. I worry that these thoughts will come up in school. What do you think you’d do in the moment if these thoughts come up?’ If there’s a coping strategy — for example, ‘I’d talk to my friend during lunch’ — that’s also reassuring,” Crawford said.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the statement should be ignored or dismissed. Rather, it informs the next preventive steps and how intensive the level of care should be.
Next Steps: Involving the Family, Getting Help
It’s particularly concerning if the child is unable to identify strategies other than suicide, said Crawford. “You can say, ‘I’m concerned because it’s highly likely that you’ll run into this guy and I wouldn’t want you to die. You have so much to live for.’”
Then, you can ask if it’s okay to bring in the parent or caregiver to talk about what the child just revealed. “If the kid says no — especially a teen — you can respond, ‘I hear what you’re saying, but I actually do have to bring your parent in because of your safety and we can discuss together how to keep you safe.’”
In advance, Crawford tells the patient what she plans to share with the parent. “That way, we’re on the same page and the kid has a sense of agency about how the conversation with the parent will go.” If the teen doesn’t want certain information revealed, “you can ask, ‘What would you leave out, and why?’ This lends itself to a helpful conversation about what the child is thinking about.”
Once the provider has received the green light, it’s time to bring the parent into the room. “Especially in the primary care or pediatric setting, the parent is often shocked, worried, and caught off-guard,” Crawford said.
“You can start by thanking the patient for being open and honest. Then you can tell the parent, ‘Your daughter shared she’s been having some difficult emotions and experiences, and she’s thought of ending her life because she doesn’t know how to cope. I wanted to talk to you about this because it’s important to look at resources we can connect her to and effective coping strategies.’”
Further interventions can include referring the patient to a child psychiatrist or therapist, or both. “Have a list of referrals readily available,” Greydanus advised. If you suspect or if the child reveals abuse, you’re a mandated reporter and need to inform Child Protective Services (CPS). “But don’t stop there,” he warned. “Make sure the child is indeed getting help through CPS and appropriate intervention has been taken regarding the abuse and potential suicide attempt.” Or you may send the child to the ED, where ED physicians are “trained in what to do if they suspect abuse. But make sure that when you ‘throw the ball,’ there’s someone who can ‘catch’ it and accept responsibility for the child’s safety.”
Crawford noted that many primary care settings — especially in under-resourced areas — lack child psychiatrists or therapists. “You need to know what’s feasible in the community you’re practicing in,” she advised. “Be aware of the local crisis line — 988 — and mental health resources in the school and community. There are often school psychologists, social workers, or counselors who can become involved.”
Greydanus emphasized that it’s critical to assess for the presence of firearms in the home and address it with the parents. “If a child is sad or angry and gets impulsive, it’s amazingly common for them to get their hands in a firearm and use it.”
As previously reported, pediatricians and other healthcare providers have a valuable role to play in screening parents for firearm ownership and offering counseling on safe storage practices, according to research presented on September 28 at the AAP 2024 National Conference.
Sometimes, Even the Best Efforts Aren’t Successful
“Suicide is complicated, and parents or doctors can take all the ‘right’ steps to get counseling for the child — hospitalization, medication, and support — and children might still take their lives,” said Ronnie Susan Walker, MS, LCPC, founder and executive director of Alliance of Hope for Suicide Loss Survivors. The organization was launched as a “postvention campaign” 7 years ago to provide support to survivors of suicide loss, who are themselves a high-risk population for suicide.
Walker alluded to the concept of a “ suicide trance” — a term coined by Richard Heckler, PhD, in his book Waking Up, Alive. This trance “is a state of mind and body that receives only the kind of input that reinforces the pain and corroborates the person’s conviction that the only way out is through death,” Heckler wrote.
Walker, whose stepson died by suicide, said physicians and other healthcare professionals who have lost a patient to suicide “should focus on postvention — finding support from other professionals and managing their own grief and guilt.”
It’s natural to feel guilt and second-guess yourself, Greydanus said. “You question whether you missed something or could have done more, so acknowledge that even with the best care and intentions, some suicides aren’t preventable,” he said.
Walker recommends reaching out to the family. “When I lost my stepson, his doctor came to the funeral and wrote us a very meaningful note. That meant so much to us.”
Greydanus agreed it’s appropriate for the clinician to offer comfort to the family “if he or she feels it necessary or feels moved to do so.” However, he cautioned, there’s “often a fear of malpractice charges that may interfere in certain cases.”
Egger added that records should always be “very detailed,” with clear documentation of how you interacted with the child and the rationale behind your interventions. “I’m not a legal expert, but I would always err on the side of connecting with family and sharing grief and compassion. My experience with physician-patient relationships is that the more connected, transparent, and empathetic they are, the better the outcome will be for everyone.”
Losing a patient to suicide is traumatic, so give yourself time to grieve, Egger advised. “Unfortunately, this is an experience that almost everyone in the field will likely go through at some point. Reach out for professional counseling or peer support.”
Physicians who have lost a patient to suicide may turn to an online forum, the Coalition of Clinician Survivors, designed to create a safe anonymous space for discussion, education, testimonials, and one-on-one support.
Greydanus emphasized that the most important role in working with suicidal youngsters is to provide hope. “Yes, you can’t help everyone, but you can help most of them. That’s why you’re there.”
Greydanus, Crawford, Egger, Edson, Smalley, and Walker reported no financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When she was 5 years old, Katherine Edson, LCSW, tried to end her life by drowning herself. “I was enduring severe physical and sexual abuse, and it had become unbearable,” she said. “I waded into a lake, knowing there was a point when it would become too deep and I’d go under.”
As she was walking toward the deeper water, it occurred to her that if she died, she wouldn’t be able to eat Rice Krispies again. “I thought, ‘no more Snap, Crackle, and Pop’ — the three little mascots on the cereal box — and I felt sad,” said Edson, a New York–based retired therapist. “But I still kept walking.”
A man on the shore saw her disappear under the water and pulled her out. “I remember vomiting a lot of water and I remember that the man had tattoos, but I don’t remember how I felt to be alive. I was just numb.”
Edson thinks there were clues her pediatrician missed. “We lived in a small Southern town. Everyone knew my parents were alcoholics. I was very dissociated and withdrawn in general and during pediatric visits. My affect broadcasted that something was wrong, but no one asked if I was okay.”
She acknowledged that professionals in those days “weren’t tuned in to mental health issues in kids. At least there’s more awareness today and hopefully more training — especially since it seems like more kids are trying to end their lives today than when I was growing up.”
Alarming Statistics
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), suicide is the second leading cause of death for people aged 10-24 years. Data from Children’s Hospital Association’s Pediatric Health Information System revealed that suicide attempts, ideation, and self-injury have become the most common mental health conditions seen in the emergency departments (EDs) of children’s hospitals, with a 166% increase in ED visits for suicide attempts in children aged 5-18 years, between 2016 and 2022.
Psychiatrist Helen Egger, MD, chief medical officer and co-founder of Little Otter, a specialty pediatric and whole family digital mental health company, recently coauthored a report analyzing data on 1434 children who completed a screening session and comprehensive diagnostic assessment at Little Otter from May 2023 to February 2024 (n = 1016 children aged 8-14 years and n = 418 aged 3-7 years).
Almost one fifth of the older children presented with current positive suicide risk (suicidal ideation and/or behavior in the last month), while 6% of the younger age group presented with current suicide risk. The youngest was 5 years old.
Points of Contact
“It’s known that most children who die by suicide had a recent visit with a health professional — a pediatrician or child mental health professional. It’s unlikely that the child was fine and then, a few weeks later, stopped being fine. The likelihood is that the child wasn’t fine during that visit, but the clinician didn’t ask about mental health,” Egger said.
Christine Crawford, MD, MPH, associate medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), said that “When you’re working with kids, anything can come up. Be prepared to navigate the conversation. You can never predict who the patient will feel most comfortable disclosing these thoughts to.”
Pediatricians are the physicians most likely to be seen by children, and it’s important for pediatricians to inquire about a child’s mood, especially during child visits, according to Crawford, author of the book You Are Not Alone for Parents and Caregivers: The NAMI Guide to Navigating Your Child’s Mental Health.
Donald E. Greydanus, MD, professor and founding chair, Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, said many fellow pediatricians have said the highly compressed exam doesn’t allow enough time to ask questions. “But pediatricians must find a way to make time,” he said. “Asking about depression and potential suicidality is top priority and can help keep your patients alive.”
Some pediatricians have told him, “I’m not prepared to provide counseling.” But “your role isn’t to provide counseling, just to open the conversation, offer hope, and direct the youngster to resources that can help.”
Don’t Be Afraid to Ask
According to the AAP, all children aged 12 years or older should be screened for suicidal risk, and children aged 8-11 years should be screened “when clinically indicated.” AAP also recommends annual screening for depression in children aged 12 years or older. However, Egger thinks that screening for depression should start sooner.
It can be tempting to screen by merely giving a youngster a form to fill out in the waiting room, but Greydanus strongly advises against this approach. “The important thing is having rapport with the child, being in the same room together. You can ask some simple questions. ‘How are you doing? How are things at school? How are things with your family?’”
“When you’re screening for depression and have a kid who’s talking about sadness or low mood for more than 2 weeks and endorsing other symptoms, such as problems with sleep or appetite, difficulty concentrating, anhedonia, losing interest in things they’d usually enjoy, feeling they’re a burden to others, hopelessness about the future, being unable to function the way they used to — that person meets criteria for depression and you should have a high suspicion and concern about potential suicide,” said Crawford, assistant professor of psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine.
She suggested probing further and being direct. “It sounds like you’ve been having a tough time. You talk about being sad. I wonder if you’re feeling so sad that you might not want to be alive anymore.” Some healthcare providers “tiptoe around when it comes to suicide, but it’s better to be direct and communicate the question in simple, plain language: ‘Have you ever had thoughts about hurting or killing yourself, that life is no longer worth living, or life would be easier for your family if you weren’t alive?’”
It’s a common myth that asking about depression or suicidality will “plant a seed” or “put ideas in people’s heads,” potentially leading to suicidality. “What we know to be true is that asking about suicide doesn’t put lives at risk. In fact, the contrary is true,” according to Crawford. Several studies have refuted this myth.
Two screening tools that might be helpful in ascertaining the presence of depression and suicidality are the PHQ-9 modified for Adolescents and the four-question Ask Suicide-Screening Questions.
Probe for More Details
If a child or adolescent affirms suicidal ideation, it’s important to ask if they have a plan, Crawford advised. “If they say, ‘yes,’ don’t run out of the office or shut down the conversation by picking up the phone and calling the closest child psychiatrist. We want kids to open up as much as possible when they’ve already opened up a little. So continue the conversation.”
If a child has a plan, the risk for following through on that plan is “high,” Crawford emphasized. “You want the maximum amount of information at your fingertips because this will equip you to navigate the next step in getting the child help.”
The suicide plan may not be realistic and, if carried out, might not actually end in death, especially in younger children. “A 6-year-old might say, ‘I’m gonna drink a whole bottle of apple juice and my belly will explode.’ Or ‘I’ll take 10 extra vitamins.’ The objective lethality of the plan doesn’t matter in that moment. What matters is that the child believes it’s going to work, and it provides a window into how depressed that child is.”
Greydanus added that it’s important to understand what might be going on in the child’s life. Could there be abuse in the family? Is the child being bullied? Bullying can take place at school or online, he noted. The overall risk for suicidal thoughts is elevated for youth who are involved in bullying, whether they’re the bully or the one being bullied.
Kirk Smalley, president and co-founder of Stand for the Silent, an organization designed to bring awareness about the devastating effects of bullying, agreed that pediatricians a should ask children if they’re being bullied. “Sometimes, kids will open up to someone who isn’t a parent or a teacher, who might be seen as ‘too close’ to the situation,” Smalley said.
“Let them know you’re a trusted adult they can confide in and you’re willing to help them navigate this — and then follow through,” advised Smalley, whose 11-year-old son died by suicide after being subjected to bullying.
Painting a Complete Picture
Crawford advises clinicians to “look at the whole picture and piece it together.”
For example, “if the child is functioning, going to school, maintaining relationships with other people, and not experiencing symptoms of depression but discloses the desire to kill him/herself, understand the context.” Sometimes, adolescents can be impulsive. Decision-making “can be driven by emotion.” The teen may have experienced emotional distress, such as “conflict with a peer, arguments with a parent, or romantic heartbreak. She might say, ‘I’m going to kill myself if I ever see him holding hands with another girl.’”
In the setting of an acute stressor, such as a breakup, the child might not need a higher level of care such as hospitalization. “But for non-psychiatry providers, it’s unclear if the child might act on it, so it’s important to have the child evaluated; talk to collateral supports, such as parents, teachers, or a therapist if they have one; and see what makes sense for that specific child.”
She also recommended “getting a sense if the kid is future-oriented in thinking. If they’re talking about an upcoming concert this weekend, or wanting to get to basketball practice, that’s reassuring. It suggests the likelihood of following through [on suicide] is low.”
And assess coping strategies. “You can say, ‘I see you’re really going through a lot. I worry that these thoughts will come up in school. What do you think you’d do in the moment if these thoughts come up?’ If there’s a coping strategy — for example, ‘I’d talk to my friend during lunch’ — that’s also reassuring,” Crawford said.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the statement should be ignored or dismissed. Rather, it informs the next preventive steps and how intensive the level of care should be.
Next Steps: Involving the Family, Getting Help
It’s particularly concerning if the child is unable to identify strategies other than suicide, said Crawford. “You can say, ‘I’m concerned because it’s highly likely that you’ll run into this guy and I wouldn’t want you to die. You have so much to live for.’”
Then, you can ask if it’s okay to bring in the parent or caregiver to talk about what the child just revealed. “If the kid says no — especially a teen — you can respond, ‘I hear what you’re saying, but I actually do have to bring your parent in because of your safety and we can discuss together how to keep you safe.’”
In advance, Crawford tells the patient what she plans to share with the parent. “That way, we’re on the same page and the kid has a sense of agency about how the conversation with the parent will go.” If the teen doesn’t want certain information revealed, “you can ask, ‘What would you leave out, and why?’ This lends itself to a helpful conversation about what the child is thinking about.”
Once the provider has received the green light, it’s time to bring the parent into the room. “Especially in the primary care or pediatric setting, the parent is often shocked, worried, and caught off-guard,” Crawford said.
“You can start by thanking the patient for being open and honest. Then you can tell the parent, ‘Your daughter shared she’s been having some difficult emotions and experiences, and she’s thought of ending her life because she doesn’t know how to cope. I wanted to talk to you about this because it’s important to look at resources we can connect her to and effective coping strategies.’”
Further interventions can include referring the patient to a child psychiatrist or therapist, or both. “Have a list of referrals readily available,” Greydanus advised. If you suspect or if the child reveals abuse, you’re a mandated reporter and need to inform Child Protective Services (CPS). “But don’t stop there,” he warned. “Make sure the child is indeed getting help through CPS and appropriate intervention has been taken regarding the abuse and potential suicide attempt.” Or you may send the child to the ED, where ED physicians are “trained in what to do if they suspect abuse. But make sure that when you ‘throw the ball,’ there’s someone who can ‘catch’ it and accept responsibility for the child’s safety.”
Crawford noted that many primary care settings — especially in under-resourced areas — lack child psychiatrists or therapists. “You need to know what’s feasible in the community you’re practicing in,” she advised. “Be aware of the local crisis line — 988 — and mental health resources in the school and community. There are often school psychologists, social workers, or counselors who can become involved.”
Greydanus emphasized that it’s critical to assess for the presence of firearms in the home and address it with the parents. “If a child is sad or angry and gets impulsive, it’s amazingly common for them to get their hands in a firearm and use it.”
As previously reported, pediatricians and other healthcare providers have a valuable role to play in screening parents for firearm ownership and offering counseling on safe storage practices, according to research presented on September 28 at the AAP 2024 National Conference.
Sometimes, Even the Best Efforts Aren’t Successful
“Suicide is complicated, and parents or doctors can take all the ‘right’ steps to get counseling for the child — hospitalization, medication, and support — and children might still take their lives,” said Ronnie Susan Walker, MS, LCPC, founder and executive director of Alliance of Hope for Suicide Loss Survivors. The organization was launched as a “postvention campaign” 7 years ago to provide support to survivors of suicide loss, who are themselves a high-risk population for suicide.
Walker alluded to the concept of a “ suicide trance” — a term coined by Richard Heckler, PhD, in his book Waking Up, Alive. This trance “is a state of mind and body that receives only the kind of input that reinforces the pain and corroborates the person’s conviction that the only way out is through death,” Heckler wrote.
Walker, whose stepson died by suicide, said physicians and other healthcare professionals who have lost a patient to suicide “should focus on postvention — finding support from other professionals and managing their own grief and guilt.”
It’s natural to feel guilt and second-guess yourself, Greydanus said. “You question whether you missed something or could have done more, so acknowledge that even with the best care and intentions, some suicides aren’t preventable,” he said.
Walker recommends reaching out to the family. “When I lost my stepson, his doctor came to the funeral and wrote us a very meaningful note. That meant so much to us.”
Greydanus agreed it’s appropriate for the clinician to offer comfort to the family “if he or she feels it necessary or feels moved to do so.” However, he cautioned, there’s “often a fear of malpractice charges that may interfere in certain cases.”
Egger added that records should always be “very detailed,” with clear documentation of how you interacted with the child and the rationale behind your interventions. “I’m not a legal expert, but I would always err on the side of connecting with family and sharing grief and compassion. My experience with physician-patient relationships is that the more connected, transparent, and empathetic they are, the better the outcome will be for everyone.”
Losing a patient to suicide is traumatic, so give yourself time to grieve, Egger advised. “Unfortunately, this is an experience that almost everyone in the field will likely go through at some point. Reach out for professional counseling or peer support.”
Physicians who have lost a patient to suicide may turn to an online forum, the Coalition of Clinician Survivors, designed to create a safe anonymous space for discussion, education, testimonials, and one-on-one support.
Greydanus emphasized that the most important role in working with suicidal youngsters is to provide hope. “Yes, you can’t help everyone, but you can help most of them. That’s why you’re there.”
Greydanus, Crawford, Egger, Edson, Smalley, and Walker reported no financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When she was 5 years old, Katherine Edson, LCSW, tried to end her life by drowning herself. “I was enduring severe physical and sexual abuse, and it had become unbearable,” she said. “I waded into a lake, knowing there was a point when it would become too deep and I’d go under.”
As she was walking toward the deeper water, it occurred to her that if she died, she wouldn’t be able to eat Rice Krispies again. “I thought, ‘no more Snap, Crackle, and Pop’ — the three little mascots on the cereal box — and I felt sad,” said Edson, a New York–based retired therapist. “But I still kept walking.”
A man on the shore saw her disappear under the water and pulled her out. “I remember vomiting a lot of water and I remember that the man had tattoos, but I don’t remember how I felt to be alive. I was just numb.”
Edson thinks there were clues her pediatrician missed. “We lived in a small Southern town. Everyone knew my parents were alcoholics. I was very dissociated and withdrawn in general and during pediatric visits. My affect broadcasted that something was wrong, but no one asked if I was okay.”
She acknowledged that professionals in those days “weren’t tuned in to mental health issues in kids. At least there’s more awareness today and hopefully more training — especially since it seems like more kids are trying to end their lives today than when I was growing up.”
Alarming Statistics
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), suicide is the second leading cause of death for people aged 10-24 years. Data from Children’s Hospital Association’s Pediatric Health Information System revealed that suicide attempts, ideation, and self-injury have become the most common mental health conditions seen in the emergency departments (EDs) of children’s hospitals, with a 166% increase in ED visits for suicide attempts in children aged 5-18 years, between 2016 and 2022.
Psychiatrist Helen Egger, MD, chief medical officer and co-founder of Little Otter, a specialty pediatric and whole family digital mental health company, recently coauthored a report analyzing data on 1434 children who completed a screening session and comprehensive diagnostic assessment at Little Otter from May 2023 to February 2024 (n = 1016 children aged 8-14 years and n = 418 aged 3-7 years).
Almost one fifth of the older children presented with current positive suicide risk (suicidal ideation and/or behavior in the last month), while 6% of the younger age group presented with current suicide risk. The youngest was 5 years old.
Points of Contact
“It’s known that most children who die by suicide had a recent visit with a health professional — a pediatrician or child mental health professional. It’s unlikely that the child was fine and then, a few weeks later, stopped being fine. The likelihood is that the child wasn’t fine during that visit, but the clinician didn’t ask about mental health,” Egger said.
Christine Crawford, MD, MPH, associate medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), said that “When you’re working with kids, anything can come up. Be prepared to navigate the conversation. You can never predict who the patient will feel most comfortable disclosing these thoughts to.”
Pediatricians are the physicians most likely to be seen by children, and it’s important for pediatricians to inquire about a child’s mood, especially during child visits, according to Crawford, author of the book You Are Not Alone for Parents and Caregivers: The NAMI Guide to Navigating Your Child’s Mental Health.
Donald E. Greydanus, MD, professor and founding chair, Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, said many fellow pediatricians have said the highly compressed exam doesn’t allow enough time to ask questions. “But pediatricians must find a way to make time,” he said. “Asking about depression and potential suicidality is top priority and can help keep your patients alive.”
Some pediatricians have told him, “I’m not prepared to provide counseling.” But “your role isn’t to provide counseling, just to open the conversation, offer hope, and direct the youngster to resources that can help.”
Don’t Be Afraid to Ask
According to the AAP, all children aged 12 years or older should be screened for suicidal risk, and children aged 8-11 years should be screened “when clinically indicated.” AAP also recommends annual screening for depression in children aged 12 years or older. However, Egger thinks that screening for depression should start sooner.
It can be tempting to screen by merely giving a youngster a form to fill out in the waiting room, but Greydanus strongly advises against this approach. “The important thing is having rapport with the child, being in the same room together. You can ask some simple questions. ‘How are you doing? How are things at school? How are things with your family?’”
“When you’re screening for depression and have a kid who’s talking about sadness or low mood for more than 2 weeks and endorsing other symptoms, such as problems with sleep or appetite, difficulty concentrating, anhedonia, losing interest in things they’d usually enjoy, feeling they’re a burden to others, hopelessness about the future, being unable to function the way they used to — that person meets criteria for depression and you should have a high suspicion and concern about potential suicide,” said Crawford, assistant professor of psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine.
She suggested probing further and being direct. “It sounds like you’ve been having a tough time. You talk about being sad. I wonder if you’re feeling so sad that you might not want to be alive anymore.” Some healthcare providers “tiptoe around when it comes to suicide, but it’s better to be direct and communicate the question in simple, plain language: ‘Have you ever had thoughts about hurting or killing yourself, that life is no longer worth living, or life would be easier for your family if you weren’t alive?’”
It’s a common myth that asking about depression or suicidality will “plant a seed” or “put ideas in people’s heads,” potentially leading to suicidality. “What we know to be true is that asking about suicide doesn’t put lives at risk. In fact, the contrary is true,” according to Crawford. Several studies have refuted this myth.
Two screening tools that might be helpful in ascertaining the presence of depression and suicidality are the PHQ-9 modified for Adolescents and the four-question Ask Suicide-Screening Questions.
Probe for More Details
If a child or adolescent affirms suicidal ideation, it’s important to ask if they have a plan, Crawford advised. “If they say, ‘yes,’ don’t run out of the office or shut down the conversation by picking up the phone and calling the closest child psychiatrist. We want kids to open up as much as possible when they’ve already opened up a little. So continue the conversation.”
If a child has a plan, the risk for following through on that plan is “high,” Crawford emphasized. “You want the maximum amount of information at your fingertips because this will equip you to navigate the next step in getting the child help.”
The suicide plan may not be realistic and, if carried out, might not actually end in death, especially in younger children. “A 6-year-old might say, ‘I’m gonna drink a whole bottle of apple juice and my belly will explode.’ Or ‘I’ll take 10 extra vitamins.’ The objective lethality of the plan doesn’t matter in that moment. What matters is that the child believes it’s going to work, and it provides a window into how depressed that child is.”
Greydanus added that it’s important to understand what might be going on in the child’s life. Could there be abuse in the family? Is the child being bullied? Bullying can take place at school or online, he noted. The overall risk for suicidal thoughts is elevated for youth who are involved in bullying, whether they’re the bully or the one being bullied.
Kirk Smalley, president and co-founder of Stand for the Silent, an organization designed to bring awareness about the devastating effects of bullying, agreed that pediatricians a should ask children if they’re being bullied. “Sometimes, kids will open up to someone who isn’t a parent or a teacher, who might be seen as ‘too close’ to the situation,” Smalley said.
“Let them know you’re a trusted adult they can confide in and you’re willing to help them navigate this — and then follow through,” advised Smalley, whose 11-year-old son died by suicide after being subjected to bullying.
Painting a Complete Picture
Crawford advises clinicians to “look at the whole picture and piece it together.”
For example, “if the child is functioning, going to school, maintaining relationships with other people, and not experiencing symptoms of depression but discloses the desire to kill him/herself, understand the context.” Sometimes, adolescents can be impulsive. Decision-making “can be driven by emotion.” The teen may have experienced emotional distress, such as “conflict with a peer, arguments with a parent, or romantic heartbreak. She might say, ‘I’m going to kill myself if I ever see him holding hands with another girl.’”
In the setting of an acute stressor, such as a breakup, the child might not need a higher level of care such as hospitalization. “But for non-psychiatry providers, it’s unclear if the child might act on it, so it’s important to have the child evaluated; talk to collateral supports, such as parents, teachers, or a therapist if they have one; and see what makes sense for that specific child.”
She also recommended “getting a sense if the kid is future-oriented in thinking. If they’re talking about an upcoming concert this weekend, or wanting to get to basketball practice, that’s reassuring. It suggests the likelihood of following through [on suicide] is low.”
And assess coping strategies. “You can say, ‘I see you’re really going through a lot. I worry that these thoughts will come up in school. What do you think you’d do in the moment if these thoughts come up?’ If there’s a coping strategy — for example, ‘I’d talk to my friend during lunch’ — that’s also reassuring,” Crawford said.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the statement should be ignored or dismissed. Rather, it informs the next preventive steps and how intensive the level of care should be.
Next Steps: Involving the Family, Getting Help
It’s particularly concerning if the child is unable to identify strategies other than suicide, said Crawford. “You can say, ‘I’m concerned because it’s highly likely that you’ll run into this guy and I wouldn’t want you to die. You have so much to live for.’”
Then, you can ask if it’s okay to bring in the parent or caregiver to talk about what the child just revealed. “If the kid says no — especially a teen — you can respond, ‘I hear what you’re saying, but I actually do have to bring your parent in because of your safety and we can discuss together how to keep you safe.’”
In advance, Crawford tells the patient what she plans to share with the parent. “That way, we’re on the same page and the kid has a sense of agency about how the conversation with the parent will go.” If the teen doesn’t want certain information revealed, “you can ask, ‘What would you leave out, and why?’ This lends itself to a helpful conversation about what the child is thinking about.”
Once the provider has received the green light, it’s time to bring the parent into the room. “Especially in the primary care or pediatric setting, the parent is often shocked, worried, and caught off-guard,” Crawford said.
“You can start by thanking the patient for being open and honest. Then you can tell the parent, ‘Your daughter shared she’s been having some difficult emotions and experiences, and she’s thought of ending her life because she doesn’t know how to cope. I wanted to talk to you about this because it’s important to look at resources we can connect her to and effective coping strategies.’”
Further interventions can include referring the patient to a child psychiatrist or therapist, or both. “Have a list of referrals readily available,” Greydanus advised. If you suspect or if the child reveals abuse, you’re a mandated reporter and need to inform Child Protective Services (CPS). “But don’t stop there,” he warned. “Make sure the child is indeed getting help through CPS and appropriate intervention has been taken regarding the abuse and potential suicide attempt.” Or you may send the child to the ED, where ED physicians are “trained in what to do if they suspect abuse. But make sure that when you ‘throw the ball,’ there’s someone who can ‘catch’ it and accept responsibility for the child’s safety.”
Crawford noted that many primary care settings — especially in under-resourced areas — lack child psychiatrists or therapists. “You need to know what’s feasible in the community you’re practicing in,” she advised. “Be aware of the local crisis line — 988 — and mental health resources in the school and community. There are often school psychologists, social workers, or counselors who can become involved.”
Greydanus emphasized that it’s critical to assess for the presence of firearms in the home and address it with the parents. “If a child is sad or angry and gets impulsive, it’s amazingly common for them to get their hands in a firearm and use it.”
As previously reported, pediatricians and other healthcare providers have a valuable role to play in screening parents for firearm ownership and offering counseling on safe storage practices, according to research presented on September 28 at the AAP 2024 National Conference.
Sometimes, Even the Best Efforts Aren’t Successful
“Suicide is complicated, and parents or doctors can take all the ‘right’ steps to get counseling for the child — hospitalization, medication, and support — and children might still take their lives,” said Ronnie Susan Walker, MS, LCPC, founder and executive director of Alliance of Hope for Suicide Loss Survivors. The organization was launched as a “postvention campaign” 7 years ago to provide support to survivors of suicide loss, who are themselves a high-risk population for suicide.
Walker alluded to the concept of a “ suicide trance” — a term coined by Richard Heckler, PhD, in his book Waking Up, Alive. This trance “is a state of mind and body that receives only the kind of input that reinforces the pain and corroborates the person’s conviction that the only way out is through death,” Heckler wrote.
Walker, whose stepson died by suicide, said physicians and other healthcare professionals who have lost a patient to suicide “should focus on postvention — finding support from other professionals and managing their own grief and guilt.”
It’s natural to feel guilt and second-guess yourself, Greydanus said. “You question whether you missed something or could have done more, so acknowledge that even with the best care and intentions, some suicides aren’t preventable,” he said.
Walker recommends reaching out to the family. “When I lost my stepson, his doctor came to the funeral and wrote us a very meaningful note. That meant so much to us.”
Greydanus agreed it’s appropriate for the clinician to offer comfort to the family “if he or she feels it necessary or feels moved to do so.” However, he cautioned, there’s “often a fear of malpractice charges that may interfere in certain cases.”
Egger added that records should always be “very detailed,” with clear documentation of how you interacted with the child and the rationale behind your interventions. “I’m not a legal expert, but I would always err on the side of connecting with family and sharing grief and compassion. My experience with physician-patient relationships is that the more connected, transparent, and empathetic they are, the better the outcome will be for everyone.”
Losing a patient to suicide is traumatic, so give yourself time to grieve, Egger advised. “Unfortunately, this is an experience that almost everyone in the field will likely go through at some point. Reach out for professional counseling or peer support.”
Physicians who have lost a patient to suicide may turn to an online forum, the Coalition of Clinician Survivors, designed to create a safe anonymous space for discussion, education, testimonials, and one-on-one support.
Greydanus emphasized that the most important role in working with suicidal youngsters is to provide hope. “Yes, you can’t help everyone, but you can help most of them. That’s why you’re there.”
Greydanus, Crawford, Egger, Edson, Smalley, and Walker reported no financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Should the Body Roundness Index Replace BMI?
In daily practice, physicians need a quick and simple way to assess whether a patient’s weight presents a health risk. For decades, the body mass index (BMI) has been used for this purpose, with calculations based on height and weight. Despite its convenience, BMI has faced increasing criticism.
According to experts, BRI may more accurately identify people with high levels of visceral fat than BMI. It’s well documented that abdominal fat is strongly linked to higher risks for obesity-related diseases.
Studies Support BRI
Several studies have suggested that BRI could be a valuable tool for assessing health risks. In June of this year, researchers from China reported a significant U-shaped association between BRI and overall mortality in a paper published in JAMA Network Open. People with very low or very high BRI had an increased risk for death, noted Xiaoqian Zhang, MD, from Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China, and his colleagues.
A study published in September in the Journal of the American Heart Association showed that elevated BRI over several years was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. “The BRI can be included as a predictive factor for cardiovascular disease incidence,” stated the authors, led by Man Yang, MD, from Nanjing Medical University in Nanjing, China.
Why Replace BMI?
Why is a replacement for BMI necessary? When asked by this news organization, Manfred Müller, MD, senior professor at the Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Kiel, in Germany, explained: “BMI was designed to provide a simple value that was as independent of body size as possible, that could detect obesity and estimate related disease risks. But scientifically, BMI has always been a very crude measure to characterize disease risks.”
Müller was part of a research group led by US mathematician Diana Thomas, PhD, who, at the time, worked at Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, and now holds a position at the US Military Academy at West Point, in New York. The group developed and published the BRI in 2013.
BMI Classifies Bodybuilders as Obese
The researchers justified their search for a “better” anthropometric measure with two aspects of BMI that still constitute the main points of criticism of the widely used index today:
BMI incorrectly classifies individuals with significant muscle mass, like bodybuilders, as obese, as it doesn’t distinguish between fat and muscle mass.
BMI provides no information about fat distribution in the body — whether it’s concentrated in the hips or the abdomen, for example.
In practice, this means that a person with a normal BMI could already have prediabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, which might go undetected if no further investigations are conducted based solely on their BMI.
The BRI aims to solve this problem. As the name suggests, this index seeks to capture a person’s “roundness.” The formula for calculating BRI includes waist circumference and height but excludes body weight:
BRI = 364.2 − 365.5 × √(1 − [Waist circumference in cm/2π]²/[0.5 × Height in cm]²)
In their 2013 article, Thomas, Müller, and colleagues wrote that it still needed to be proven whether their newly developed index correlated with mortality and the risk for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases — and whether it was sufficiently better than BMI to justify the more complex calculation.
Could BRI Replace BMI?
Opinions differ on whether the BRI should replace the BMI. Zhang’s team concluded that the BRI needs to be validated in additional independent cohorts. If it does, it could become a practical screening tool in patient care.
Yang’s research group is optimistic about the BRI’s future: “The longitudinal trajectory of the BRI could be used as a novel indicator of cardiovascular disease risk, which provides a new possibility for cardiovascular disease prevention,” they wrote.
However, even BRI Co-creator Thomas has concerns. “Our entire medical system has been built around the BMI,” she told JAMA, referring to factors such as children’s growth charts and dosage recommendations for medications. That cannot be changed overnight.
Any anthropometric measure intended to replace BMI would need to be rigorously validated across all age groups, genders, and ethnicities. The impact of interventions such as bariatric surgery, diet, and exercise on the new measure would also need to be demonstrated.
Anthropometric Measures Only for Clinical Use
Even if BRI proves to be a “better” metric than BMI for patient care, Müller believes it would be no more suitable for research than BMI. “Regardless of the anthropometric measure, these are practical tools for everyday use,” he stressed.
“A high BRI, like a high BMI, is a risk factor — similar to high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, or smoking — but it is not a disease,” he added. “In practice, as a physician, I know that a patient with a high BMI or BRI has an increased risk. I need to pay attention to that patient.”
Problems arise when indices like BMI or BRI are used in research. “These ‘invented’ anthropometric measures have no biological basis, which can harm obesity research,” Müller emphasized.
He cited the example of genetic research into obesity, which seeks to identify associations between specific genetic patterns and BMI values. “Why should weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared be genetically determined?” he asked. “These measures are human-made constructs that have nothing to do with biology.”
Müller believes that the use of BMI has created a “gray area in obesity research” that may account for many of the “unexplained” phenomena in this field.
The BMI Might Be Responsible for the ‘Healthy Obese’
One such phenomenon is the much-discussed “healthy obese,” referring to individuals with a BMI over 30 who do not have high blood sugar, high blood pressure, metabolic disorders, or elevated uric acid levels. “It’s speculated that it must be due to genetic factors, but in reality, the classification is simply wrong,” Müller said.
According to Müller, research should rely on other methods to determine obesity or relevant fat. For example, to assess diabetes risk, liver fat needs to be measured through enzyme tests, ultrasonography, CT, or MRI.
Visceral fat is also important in assessing cardiometabolic risk. “In the doctor’s office, it’s acceptable to estimate this by looking at waist circumference or even BRI. But for research, that’s inadequate,” noted Müller. Direct measurement of trunk fat with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or visceral fat with CT or MRI is needed.
“You always have to distinguish between research and patient care. In daily practice, measures like BRI or BMI are sufficient for assessing cardiometabolic risk. But in research, they are not,” Müller explained. To accurately study the disease risks associated with obesity, one must be aware that “with BMI, you cannot create scientifically valid patient or population groups because this value is far too imprecise.”
This story was translated from Medscape’s German edition 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.
In daily practice, physicians need a quick and simple way to assess whether a patient’s weight presents a health risk. For decades, the body mass index (BMI) has been used for this purpose, with calculations based on height and weight. Despite its convenience, BMI has faced increasing criticism.
According to experts, BRI may more accurately identify people with high levels of visceral fat than BMI. It’s well documented that abdominal fat is strongly linked to higher risks for obesity-related diseases.
Studies Support BRI
Several studies have suggested that BRI could be a valuable tool for assessing health risks. In June of this year, researchers from China reported a significant U-shaped association between BRI and overall mortality in a paper published in JAMA Network Open. People with very low or very high BRI had an increased risk for death, noted Xiaoqian Zhang, MD, from Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China, and his colleagues.
A study published in September in the Journal of the American Heart Association showed that elevated BRI over several years was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. “The BRI can be included as a predictive factor for cardiovascular disease incidence,” stated the authors, led by Man Yang, MD, from Nanjing Medical University in Nanjing, China.
Why Replace BMI?
Why is a replacement for BMI necessary? When asked by this news organization, Manfred Müller, MD, senior professor at the Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Kiel, in Germany, explained: “BMI was designed to provide a simple value that was as independent of body size as possible, that could detect obesity and estimate related disease risks. But scientifically, BMI has always been a very crude measure to characterize disease risks.”
Müller was part of a research group led by US mathematician Diana Thomas, PhD, who, at the time, worked at Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, and now holds a position at the US Military Academy at West Point, in New York. The group developed and published the BRI in 2013.
BMI Classifies Bodybuilders as Obese
The researchers justified their search for a “better” anthropometric measure with two aspects of BMI that still constitute the main points of criticism of the widely used index today:
BMI incorrectly classifies individuals with significant muscle mass, like bodybuilders, as obese, as it doesn’t distinguish between fat and muscle mass.
BMI provides no information about fat distribution in the body — whether it’s concentrated in the hips or the abdomen, for example.
In practice, this means that a person with a normal BMI could already have prediabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, which might go undetected if no further investigations are conducted based solely on their BMI.
The BRI aims to solve this problem. As the name suggests, this index seeks to capture a person’s “roundness.” The formula for calculating BRI includes waist circumference and height but excludes body weight:
BRI = 364.2 − 365.5 × √(1 − [Waist circumference in cm/2π]²/[0.5 × Height in cm]²)
In their 2013 article, Thomas, Müller, and colleagues wrote that it still needed to be proven whether their newly developed index correlated with mortality and the risk for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases — and whether it was sufficiently better than BMI to justify the more complex calculation.
Could BRI Replace BMI?
Opinions differ on whether the BRI should replace the BMI. Zhang’s team concluded that the BRI needs to be validated in additional independent cohorts. If it does, it could become a practical screening tool in patient care.
Yang’s research group is optimistic about the BRI’s future: “The longitudinal trajectory of the BRI could be used as a novel indicator of cardiovascular disease risk, which provides a new possibility for cardiovascular disease prevention,” they wrote.
However, even BRI Co-creator Thomas has concerns. “Our entire medical system has been built around the BMI,” she told JAMA, referring to factors such as children’s growth charts and dosage recommendations for medications. That cannot be changed overnight.
Any anthropometric measure intended to replace BMI would need to be rigorously validated across all age groups, genders, and ethnicities. The impact of interventions such as bariatric surgery, diet, and exercise on the new measure would also need to be demonstrated.
Anthropometric Measures Only for Clinical Use
Even if BRI proves to be a “better” metric than BMI for patient care, Müller believes it would be no more suitable for research than BMI. “Regardless of the anthropometric measure, these are practical tools for everyday use,” he stressed.
“A high BRI, like a high BMI, is a risk factor — similar to high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, or smoking — but it is not a disease,” he added. “In practice, as a physician, I know that a patient with a high BMI or BRI has an increased risk. I need to pay attention to that patient.”
Problems arise when indices like BMI or BRI are used in research. “These ‘invented’ anthropometric measures have no biological basis, which can harm obesity research,” Müller emphasized.
He cited the example of genetic research into obesity, which seeks to identify associations between specific genetic patterns and BMI values. “Why should weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared be genetically determined?” he asked. “These measures are human-made constructs that have nothing to do with biology.”
Müller believes that the use of BMI has created a “gray area in obesity research” that may account for many of the “unexplained” phenomena in this field.
The BMI Might Be Responsible for the ‘Healthy Obese’
One such phenomenon is the much-discussed “healthy obese,” referring to individuals with a BMI over 30 who do not have high blood sugar, high blood pressure, metabolic disorders, or elevated uric acid levels. “It’s speculated that it must be due to genetic factors, but in reality, the classification is simply wrong,” Müller said.
According to Müller, research should rely on other methods to determine obesity or relevant fat. For example, to assess diabetes risk, liver fat needs to be measured through enzyme tests, ultrasonography, CT, or MRI.
Visceral fat is also important in assessing cardiometabolic risk. “In the doctor’s office, it’s acceptable to estimate this by looking at waist circumference or even BRI. But for research, that’s inadequate,” noted Müller. Direct measurement of trunk fat with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or visceral fat with CT or MRI is needed.
“You always have to distinguish between research and patient care. In daily practice, measures like BRI or BMI are sufficient for assessing cardiometabolic risk. But in research, they are not,” Müller explained. To accurately study the disease risks associated with obesity, one must be aware that “with BMI, you cannot create scientifically valid patient or population groups because this value is far too imprecise.”
This story was translated from Medscape’s German edition 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.
In daily practice, physicians need a quick and simple way to assess whether a patient’s weight presents a health risk. For decades, the body mass index (BMI) has been used for this purpose, with calculations based on height and weight. Despite its convenience, BMI has faced increasing criticism.
According to experts, BRI may more accurately identify people with high levels of visceral fat than BMI. It’s well documented that abdominal fat is strongly linked to higher risks for obesity-related diseases.
Studies Support BRI
Several studies have suggested that BRI could be a valuable tool for assessing health risks. In June of this year, researchers from China reported a significant U-shaped association between BRI and overall mortality in a paper published in JAMA Network Open. People with very low or very high BRI had an increased risk for death, noted Xiaoqian Zhang, MD, from Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China, and his colleagues.
A study published in September in the Journal of the American Heart Association showed that elevated BRI over several years was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. “The BRI can be included as a predictive factor for cardiovascular disease incidence,” stated the authors, led by Man Yang, MD, from Nanjing Medical University in Nanjing, China.
Why Replace BMI?
Why is a replacement for BMI necessary? When asked by this news organization, Manfred Müller, MD, senior professor at the Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Kiel, in Germany, explained: “BMI was designed to provide a simple value that was as independent of body size as possible, that could detect obesity and estimate related disease risks. But scientifically, BMI has always been a very crude measure to characterize disease risks.”
Müller was part of a research group led by US mathematician Diana Thomas, PhD, who, at the time, worked at Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, and now holds a position at the US Military Academy at West Point, in New York. The group developed and published the BRI in 2013.
BMI Classifies Bodybuilders as Obese
The researchers justified their search for a “better” anthropometric measure with two aspects of BMI that still constitute the main points of criticism of the widely used index today:
BMI incorrectly classifies individuals with significant muscle mass, like bodybuilders, as obese, as it doesn’t distinguish between fat and muscle mass.
BMI provides no information about fat distribution in the body — whether it’s concentrated in the hips or the abdomen, for example.
In practice, this means that a person with a normal BMI could already have prediabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, which might go undetected if no further investigations are conducted based solely on their BMI.
The BRI aims to solve this problem. As the name suggests, this index seeks to capture a person’s “roundness.” The formula for calculating BRI includes waist circumference and height but excludes body weight:
BRI = 364.2 − 365.5 × √(1 − [Waist circumference in cm/2π]²/[0.5 × Height in cm]²)
In their 2013 article, Thomas, Müller, and colleagues wrote that it still needed to be proven whether their newly developed index correlated with mortality and the risk for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases — and whether it was sufficiently better than BMI to justify the more complex calculation.
Could BRI Replace BMI?
Opinions differ on whether the BRI should replace the BMI. Zhang’s team concluded that the BRI needs to be validated in additional independent cohorts. If it does, it could become a practical screening tool in patient care.
Yang’s research group is optimistic about the BRI’s future: “The longitudinal trajectory of the BRI could be used as a novel indicator of cardiovascular disease risk, which provides a new possibility for cardiovascular disease prevention,” they wrote.
However, even BRI Co-creator Thomas has concerns. “Our entire medical system has been built around the BMI,” she told JAMA, referring to factors such as children’s growth charts and dosage recommendations for medications. That cannot be changed overnight.
Any anthropometric measure intended to replace BMI would need to be rigorously validated across all age groups, genders, and ethnicities. The impact of interventions such as bariatric surgery, diet, and exercise on the new measure would also need to be demonstrated.
Anthropometric Measures Only for Clinical Use
Even if BRI proves to be a “better” metric than BMI for patient care, Müller believes it would be no more suitable for research than BMI. “Regardless of the anthropometric measure, these are practical tools for everyday use,” he stressed.
“A high BRI, like a high BMI, is a risk factor — similar to high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, or smoking — but it is not a disease,” he added. “In practice, as a physician, I know that a patient with a high BMI or BRI has an increased risk. I need to pay attention to that patient.”
Problems arise when indices like BMI or BRI are used in research. “These ‘invented’ anthropometric measures have no biological basis, which can harm obesity research,” Müller emphasized.
He cited the example of genetic research into obesity, which seeks to identify associations between specific genetic patterns and BMI values. “Why should weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared be genetically determined?” he asked. “These measures are human-made constructs that have nothing to do with biology.”
Müller believes that the use of BMI has created a “gray area in obesity research” that may account for many of the “unexplained” phenomena in this field.
The BMI Might Be Responsible for the ‘Healthy Obese’
One such phenomenon is the much-discussed “healthy obese,” referring to individuals with a BMI over 30 who do not have high blood sugar, high blood pressure, metabolic disorders, or elevated uric acid levels. “It’s speculated that it must be due to genetic factors, but in reality, the classification is simply wrong,” Müller said.
According to Müller, research should rely on other methods to determine obesity or relevant fat. For example, to assess diabetes risk, liver fat needs to be measured through enzyme tests, ultrasonography, CT, or MRI.
Visceral fat is also important in assessing cardiometabolic risk. “In the doctor’s office, it’s acceptable to estimate this by looking at waist circumference or even BRI. But for research, that’s inadequate,” noted Müller. Direct measurement of trunk fat with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or visceral fat with CT or MRI is needed.
“You always have to distinguish between research and patient care. In daily practice, measures like BRI or BMI are sufficient for assessing cardiometabolic risk. But in research, they are not,” Müller explained. To accurately study the disease risks associated with obesity, one must be aware that “with BMI, you cannot create scientifically valid patient or population groups because this value is far too imprecise.”
This story was translated from Medscape’s German edition 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.
Thyroid Cancer Overdiagnosis Continues Despite Cautions
according to a recently published global study.
The proportion of thyroid cancer cases attributable to overdiagnosis globally was higher in women (78%) than in men (68%), with this rate varying substantially across countries, wrote Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, and coauthors in an October paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of lesions that would not cause symptoms and that would not progress, if left alone.
Increased testing for thyroid cancer, fueled in large part by the expansion of imaging technologies and progressively more intense and disorganized scrutiny of the thyroid, led many people to be treated for often indolent lesions, exposing them to potential side effects as well as financial and emotional distress.
Li and coauthors estimate that more than 1.7 million people might have been overdiagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in 63 countries.
“Overdiagnosis clearly emerged in some high-resource countries with private-based health systems in which access to healthcare overrules regulatory controls (eg, in the USA) and in some high-quality public health systems with easy and broad access to thyroid gland diagnostic examinations (eg, in Canada),” Li and coauthors wrote. “Conversely, thyroid cancer is less commonly diagnosed in those countries in which access to diagnosis is guided by strong regulatory rules (eg, in Nordic countries).”
Their study drew from almost 40 years of research, including the latest available data from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) Global Cancer Observatory. Li and coauthors examined patterns in the time trends of thyroid cancer, mortality data, and trends in diagnosis of thyroid cancer before testing became common in many nations.
This approach is needed in estimating overdiagnosis, where it’s not possible to see what’s happening on a case-by-case level, Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, a scientist at IARC’s Cancer Surveillance Branch, said in an interview.
Researchers can’t tell whether an individual’s detected early-stage cancers would have remained indolent for years or eventually would have put their life at risk, he said. Instead, the patterns emerge through larger studies of the reported cases of cancer like thyroid tumors and then looking at separate datasets on mortality.
“We can only see that as a big phenomenon when we look at population-based data,” Vaccarella said.
Persisting Problem
Recognition of the harms of overdiagnosis has resulted in some reduction of the incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, Li and coauthors wrote. After adjusting for age, incidence has fallen from 19 per 100,000 women in 2013 to 16 per 100,000 women in 2017. The proportion of thyroid cancer attributed to overdiagnosis has dropped from 76% to 68% in the country.
The paper adds to the evidence suggesting that the rise in screening has not changed mortality rates for thyroid cancer. For example, Li and coauthors reported seeing “a small decrease in thyroid cancer mortality rates over time in some European countries, but this decline (less than 1 per 100,000 women) is marginal compared with the increases in incidence (reaching around 100 per 100,000 women).”
“Moreover, previous data show that the downward mortality trends had begun before the wide use of ultrasonography for early detection and that period and birth cohort effects have been declining, probably due to treatment advances and reduced prevalence of risk factors, such as the reduction in iodine deficiency,” they wrote.
In an interview, Amanda Davis, MD, of AnMed, a nonprofit health system based in Anderson, South Carolina, said the new paper from Li and Vaccarella provides further evidence for a cautious approach to thyroid nodules given concerns about overdiagnosis.
If early detection of cancer via discovery of thyroid nodules actually helped patients, mortality rates would have dropped with expansion of screening and the resulting diagnoses, said Davis, who is an associate program director at AnMed’s family medicine residency program and affiliate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
In many cases, people learn they have thyroid lesions after being tested for other conditions such as ultrasound done on carotid arteries to check for stroke risk. The most common form of thyroid cancer is the papillary form. Papillary thyroid cancer tends to be slow growing, carries a low risk for distant metastasis, and in many cases poses little risk. Some small (< 1 cm) papillary thyroid cancers can be monitored with active surveillance as opposed to thyroid lobectomy.
“So just finding more nodules incidentally or through screening ultrasound and even finding more papillary cancers via these methods does not make people healthier or decrease mortality,” Davis said.
“So just finding more things and even finding more papillary cancers does not increase our ability to treat people and keep them alive longer,” Davis said.
The 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1% and varies from 99.9% for localized disease to 55.3% for distant disease, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a 2017 publication in JAMA. The task force that year gave a “D” rating on screening of asymptomatic people for thyroid cancer. That means there’s moderate certainty that screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic persons results in harms that outweigh the benefits. The decision to give this “D” rating meant this screening is not recommended. That’s still the panel’s view.
“You can think of it as a “D” for ‘don’t screen for thyroid cancer,’ ” in people who present no symptoms of this illness, John Wong, MD, the vice chair of the USPSTF, said in an interview.
In primary care, the challenge is assessing thyroid nodules detected when people undergo testing for another reason, such as an ultrasound of the carotid artery to check for stroke risk.
Thyroid nodules can be detected by ultrasonography in up to 68% of the general population, reported a study in American Family Physician. Nodules with suspicious features or ≥ 1 cm require fine needle aspiration. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology can be used to classify samples, with molecular testing applied to guide treatment when fine needle aspiration yields an indeterminate result.
New Thinking on Thyroid Cancer
There’s been a shift in recent years in the approach to how physicians should proceed if certain kinds of thyroid cancer are detected, Cari M. Kitahara, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute noted in a comment accompanying the Li paper.
“Clinicians need to be judicious in the use of thyroid ultrasonography, the diagnostic follow-up of incidentally detected thyroid nodules, and determining the optimal course of treatment,” Kitahara wrote. “For low-risk and incidentally detected tumors, strong consideration should be given to less intensive treatment options (eg, lobectomy, delayed treatment, and active surveillance).”
The American Thyroid Association guidelines encourage de-escalation of treatment for low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma up to 4 cm.
Physicians often need to make clear to patients how a diagnosis of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer differs from other oncology diagnoses, R. Michael Tuttle, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, said in an interview.
“I’ll frequently say that everything you’ve ever learned about cancer, you need to forget,” Tuttle said.
Some patients will mistakenly think any cancer diagnosis is a likely death sentence, meaning they should rush to get aggressive treatment. Tuttle has been a leader for many years in efforts in advancing active surveillance as an option for certain people with low-risk thyroid cancer.
“I often start my consultation by saying: ‘We’re going to choose between two right answers here. One right answer is watching right. One right answer is going to surgery,’ ” Tuttle said.
Patients with low-risk thyroid cancer tend to fall into two camps, with maximalists likely to seek quick treatment and minimalists more inclined for surveillance if that’s an option for them, Tuttle said. As opinions have shifted within the medical community about approaches to low-risk thyroid cancer, there’s also been some growing awareness among the public about thyroid overdiagnosis.
“Ten or 15 years ago, people thought we were crazy” to consider active surveillance as an option for low-risk thyroid cancers,” Tuttle said. “Now we have swung, at least in some of the public opinion, to this recognition that every little speck of cancer doesn’t need to be immediately taken out of your body.”
Some patients express regret about having learned that they have low-risk thyroid cancer, Tuttle said.
“Over the last 5 years, it’s not uncommon for patients to ask me, ‘Is this one of those that needs to be treated now, or is this one of those that we wish we would have never found?’ Or people will say, ‘My doctor talked me into an ultrasound, I didn’t want it’ or ‘I had a car wreck, and I found this nodule and I wished I had never found it.’ ”
This study from Li and coauthors was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the Young Talents Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Davis and Tuttle had no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a recently published global study.
The proportion of thyroid cancer cases attributable to overdiagnosis globally was higher in women (78%) than in men (68%), with this rate varying substantially across countries, wrote Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, and coauthors in an October paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of lesions that would not cause symptoms and that would not progress, if left alone.
Increased testing for thyroid cancer, fueled in large part by the expansion of imaging technologies and progressively more intense and disorganized scrutiny of the thyroid, led many people to be treated for often indolent lesions, exposing them to potential side effects as well as financial and emotional distress.
Li and coauthors estimate that more than 1.7 million people might have been overdiagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in 63 countries.
“Overdiagnosis clearly emerged in some high-resource countries with private-based health systems in which access to healthcare overrules regulatory controls (eg, in the USA) and in some high-quality public health systems with easy and broad access to thyroid gland diagnostic examinations (eg, in Canada),” Li and coauthors wrote. “Conversely, thyroid cancer is less commonly diagnosed in those countries in which access to diagnosis is guided by strong regulatory rules (eg, in Nordic countries).”
Their study drew from almost 40 years of research, including the latest available data from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) Global Cancer Observatory. Li and coauthors examined patterns in the time trends of thyroid cancer, mortality data, and trends in diagnosis of thyroid cancer before testing became common in many nations.
This approach is needed in estimating overdiagnosis, where it’s not possible to see what’s happening on a case-by-case level, Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, a scientist at IARC’s Cancer Surveillance Branch, said in an interview.
Researchers can’t tell whether an individual’s detected early-stage cancers would have remained indolent for years or eventually would have put their life at risk, he said. Instead, the patterns emerge through larger studies of the reported cases of cancer like thyroid tumors and then looking at separate datasets on mortality.
“We can only see that as a big phenomenon when we look at population-based data,” Vaccarella said.
Persisting Problem
Recognition of the harms of overdiagnosis has resulted in some reduction of the incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, Li and coauthors wrote. After adjusting for age, incidence has fallen from 19 per 100,000 women in 2013 to 16 per 100,000 women in 2017. The proportion of thyroid cancer attributed to overdiagnosis has dropped from 76% to 68% in the country.
The paper adds to the evidence suggesting that the rise in screening has not changed mortality rates for thyroid cancer. For example, Li and coauthors reported seeing “a small decrease in thyroid cancer mortality rates over time in some European countries, but this decline (less than 1 per 100,000 women) is marginal compared with the increases in incidence (reaching around 100 per 100,000 women).”
“Moreover, previous data show that the downward mortality trends had begun before the wide use of ultrasonography for early detection and that period and birth cohort effects have been declining, probably due to treatment advances and reduced prevalence of risk factors, such as the reduction in iodine deficiency,” they wrote.
In an interview, Amanda Davis, MD, of AnMed, a nonprofit health system based in Anderson, South Carolina, said the new paper from Li and Vaccarella provides further evidence for a cautious approach to thyroid nodules given concerns about overdiagnosis.
If early detection of cancer via discovery of thyroid nodules actually helped patients, mortality rates would have dropped with expansion of screening and the resulting diagnoses, said Davis, who is an associate program director at AnMed’s family medicine residency program and affiliate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
In many cases, people learn they have thyroid lesions after being tested for other conditions such as ultrasound done on carotid arteries to check for stroke risk. The most common form of thyroid cancer is the papillary form. Papillary thyroid cancer tends to be slow growing, carries a low risk for distant metastasis, and in many cases poses little risk. Some small (< 1 cm) papillary thyroid cancers can be monitored with active surveillance as opposed to thyroid lobectomy.
“So just finding more nodules incidentally or through screening ultrasound and even finding more papillary cancers via these methods does not make people healthier or decrease mortality,” Davis said.
“So just finding more things and even finding more papillary cancers does not increase our ability to treat people and keep them alive longer,” Davis said.
The 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1% and varies from 99.9% for localized disease to 55.3% for distant disease, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a 2017 publication in JAMA. The task force that year gave a “D” rating on screening of asymptomatic people for thyroid cancer. That means there’s moderate certainty that screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic persons results in harms that outweigh the benefits. The decision to give this “D” rating meant this screening is not recommended. That’s still the panel’s view.
“You can think of it as a “D” for ‘don’t screen for thyroid cancer,’ ” in people who present no symptoms of this illness, John Wong, MD, the vice chair of the USPSTF, said in an interview.
In primary care, the challenge is assessing thyroid nodules detected when people undergo testing for another reason, such as an ultrasound of the carotid artery to check for stroke risk.
Thyroid nodules can be detected by ultrasonography in up to 68% of the general population, reported a study in American Family Physician. Nodules with suspicious features or ≥ 1 cm require fine needle aspiration. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology can be used to classify samples, with molecular testing applied to guide treatment when fine needle aspiration yields an indeterminate result.
New Thinking on Thyroid Cancer
There’s been a shift in recent years in the approach to how physicians should proceed if certain kinds of thyroid cancer are detected, Cari M. Kitahara, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute noted in a comment accompanying the Li paper.
“Clinicians need to be judicious in the use of thyroid ultrasonography, the diagnostic follow-up of incidentally detected thyroid nodules, and determining the optimal course of treatment,” Kitahara wrote. “For low-risk and incidentally detected tumors, strong consideration should be given to less intensive treatment options (eg, lobectomy, delayed treatment, and active surveillance).”
The American Thyroid Association guidelines encourage de-escalation of treatment for low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma up to 4 cm.
Physicians often need to make clear to patients how a diagnosis of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer differs from other oncology diagnoses, R. Michael Tuttle, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, said in an interview.
“I’ll frequently say that everything you’ve ever learned about cancer, you need to forget,” Tuttle said.
Some patients will mistakenly think any cancer diagnosis is a likely death sentence, meaning they should rush to get aggressive treatment. Tuttle has been a leader for many years in efforts in advancing active surveillance as an option for certain people with low-risk thyroid cancer.
“I often start my consultation by saying: ‘We’re going to choose between two right answers here. One right answer is watching right. One right answer is going to surgery,’ ” Tuttle said.
Patients with low-risk thyroid cancer tend to fall into two camps, with maximalists likely to seek quick treatment and minimalists more inclined for surveillance if that’s an option for them, Tuttle said. As opinions have shifted within the medical community about approaches to low-risk thyroid cancer, there’s also been some growing awareness among the public about thyroid overdiagnosis.
“Ten or 15 years ago, people thought we were crazy” to consider active surveillance as an option for low-risk thyroid cancers,” Tuttle said. “Now we have swung, at least in some of the public opinion, to this recognition that every little speck of cancer doesn’t need to be immediately taken out of your body.”
Some patients express regret about having learned that they have low-risk thyroid cancer, Tuttle said.
“Over the last 5 years, it’s not uncommon for patients to ask me, ‘Is this one of those that needs to be treated now, or is this one of those that we wish we would have never found?’ Or people will say, ‘My doctor talked me into an ultrasound, I didn’t want it’ or ‘I had a car wreck, and I found this nodule and I wished I had never found it.’ ”
This study from Li and coauthors was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the Young Talents Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Davis and Tuttle had no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a recently published global study.
The proportion of thyroid cancer cases attributable to overdiagnosis globally was higher in women (78%) than in men (68%), with this rate varying substantially across countries, wrote Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, and coauthors in an October paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of lesions that would not cause symptoms and that would not progress, if left alone.
Increased testing for thyroid cancer, fueled in large part by the expansion of imaging technologies and progressively more intense and disorganized scrutiny of the thyroid, led many people to be treated for often indolent lesions, exposing them to potential side effects as well as financial and emotional distress.
Li and coauthors estimate that more than 1.7 million people might have been overdiagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in 63 countries.
“Overdiagnosis clearly emerged in some high-resource countries with private-based health systems in which access to healthcare overrules regulatory controls (eg, in the USA) and in some high-quality public health systems with easy and broad access to thyroid gland diagnostic examinations (eg, in Canada),” Li and coauthors wrote. “Conversely, thyroid cancer is less commonly diagnosed in those countries in which access to diagnosis is guided by strong regulatory rules (eg, in Nordic countries).”
Their study drew from almost 40 years of research, including the latest available data from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) Global Cancer Observatory. Li and coauthors examined patterns in the time trends of thyroid cancer, mortality data, and trends in diagnosis of thyroid cancer before testing became common in many nations.
This approach is needed in estimating overdiagnosis, where it’s not possible to see what’s happening on a case-by-case level, Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, a scientist at IARC’s Cancer Surveillance Branch, said in an interview.
Researchers can’t tell whether an individual’s detected early-stage cancers would have remained indolent for years or eventually would have put their life at risk, he said. Instead, the patterns emerge through larger studies of the reported cases of cancer like thyroid tumors and then looking at separate datasets on mortality.
“We can only see that as a big phenomenon when we look at population-based data,” Vaccarella said.
Persisting Problem
Recognition of the harms of overdiagnosis has resulted in some reduction of the incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, Li and coauthors wrote. After adjusting for age, incidence has fallen from 19 per 100,000 women in 2013 to 16 per 100,000 women in 2017. The proportion of thyroid cancer attributed to overdiagnosis has dropped from 76% to 68% in the country.
The paper adds to the evidence suggesting that the rise in screening has not changed mortality rates for thyroid cancer. For example, Li and coauthors reported seeing “a small decrease in thyroid cancer mortality rates over time in some European countries, but this decline (less than 1 per 100,000 women) is marginal compared with the increases in incidence (reaching around 100 per 100,000 women).”
“Moreover, previous data show that the downward mortality trends had begun before the wide use of ultrasonography for early detection and that period and birth cohort effects have been declining, probably due to treatment advances and reduced prevalence of risk factors, such as the reduction in iodine deficiency,” they wrote.
In an interview, Amanda Davis, MD, of AnMed, a nonprofit health system based in Anderson, South Carolina, said the new paper from Li and Vaccarella provides further evidence for a cautious approach to thyroid nodules given concerns about overdiagnosis.
If early detection of cancer via discovery of thyroid nodules actually helped patients, mortality rates would have dropped with expansion of screening and the resulting diagnoses, said Davis, who is an associate program director at AnMed’s family medicine residency program and affiliate professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
In many cases, people learn they have thyroid lesions after being tested for other conditions such as ultrasound done on carotid arteries to check for stroke risk. The most common form of thyroid cancer is the papillary form. Papillary thyroid cancer tends to be slow growing, carries a low risk for distant metastasis, and in many cases poses little risk. Some small (< 1 cm) papillary thyroid cancers can be monitored with active surveillance as opposed to thyroid lobectomy.
“So just finding more nodules incidentally or through screening ultrasound and even finding more papillary cancers via these methods does not make people healthier or decrease mortality,” Davis said.
“So just finding more things and even finding more papillary cancers does not increase our ability to treat people and keep them alive longer,” Davis said.
The 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1% and varies from 99.9% for localized disease to 55.3% for distant disease, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a 2017 publication in JAMA. The task force that year gave a “D” rating on screening of asymptomatic people for thyroid cancer. That means there’s moderate certainty that screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic persons results in harms that outweigh the benefits. The decision to give this “D” rating meant this screening is not recommended. That’s still the panel’s view.
“You can think of it as a “D” for ‘don’t screen for thyroid cancer,’ ” in people who present no symptoms of this illness, John Wong, MD, the vice chair of the USPSTF, said in an interview.
In primary care, the challenge is assessing thyroid nodules detected when people undergo testing for another reason, such as an ultrasound of the carotid artery to check for stroke risk.
Thyroid nodules can be detected by ultrasonography in up to 68% of the general population, reported a study in American Family Physician. Nodules with suspicious features or ≥ 1 cm require fine needle aspiration. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology can be used to classify samples, with molecular testing applied to guide treatment when fine needle aspiration yields an indeterminate result.
New Thinking on Thyroid Cancer
There’s been a shift in recent years in the approach to how physicians should proceed if certain kinds of thyroid cancer are detected, Cari M. Kitahara, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute noted in a comment accompanying the Li paper.
“Clinicians need to be judicious in the use of thyroid ultrasonography, the diagnostic follow-up of incidentally detected thyroid nodules, and determining the optimal course of treatment,” Kitahara wrote. “For low-risk and incidentally detected tumors, strong consideration should be given to less intensive treatment options (eg, lobectomy, delayed treatment, and active surveillance).”
The American Thyroid Association guidelines encourage de-escalation of treatment for low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma up to 4 cm.
Physicians often need to make clear to patients how a diagnosis of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer differs from other oncology diagnoses, R. Michael Tuttle, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, said in an interview.
“I’ll frequently say that everything you’ve ever learned about cancer, you need to forget,” Tuttle said.
Some patients will mistakenly think any cancer diagnosis is a likely death sentence, meaning they should rush to get aggressive treatment. Tuttle has been a leader for many years in efforts in advancing active surveillance as an option for certain people with low-risk thyroid cancer.
“I often start my consultation by saying: ‘We’re going to choose between two right answers here. One right answer is watching right. One right answer is going to surgery,’ ” Tuttle said.
Patients with low-risk thyroid cancer tend to fall into two camps, with maximalists likely to seek quick treatment and minimalists more inclined for surveillance if that’s an option for them, Tuttle said. As opinions have shifted within the medical community about approaches to low-risk thyroid cancer, there’s also been some growing awareness among the public about thyroid overdiagnosis.
“Ten or 15 years ago, people thought we were crazy” to consider active surveillance as an option for low-risk thyroid cancers,” Tuttle said. “Now we have swung, at least in some of the public opinion, to this recognition that every little speck of cancer doesn’t need to be immediately taken out of your body.”
Some patients express regret about having learned that they have low-risk thyroid cancer, Tuttle said.
“Over the last 5 years, it’s not uncommon for patients to ask me, ‘Is this one of those that needs to be treated now, or is this one of those that we wish we would have never found?’ Or people will say, ‘My doctor talked me into an ultrasound, I didn’t want it’ or ‘I had a car wreck, and I found this nodule and I wished I had never found it.’ ”
This study from Li and coauthors was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the Young Talents Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Davis and Tuttle had no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET DIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGY
Starting Mammograms at Age 40: Will Women Benefit?
Last April, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its breast cancer screening guidelines to recommend average-risk women start their screening mammograms at age 40, instead of age 50, and continue every other year until age 74.
The USPSTF’s recent recommendations align with those from major organizations, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Radiology. The latest update comes from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which recommended a start age of 40 and continued screening either annually or every 2 years.
For USPSTF, the decision to recommend the earlier screening age, instead of keeping the choice an individualized one, was largely driven by the steady rise in breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, alongside evidence that Black women are more likely to get breast cancer younger and die from the disease compared with White women.
But is this recommendation to screen earlier a change for the better?
Opinions vary.
USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, believes the new recommendation is the right move.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Wong told Medscape last year.
However, in a recent Viewpoint in JAMA Internal Medicine, experts from the University of California San Francisco expressed their reservations about shifting the recommended screening age a decade earlier.
The trio — Karla Kerlikowske, MD, Laura Esserman, MD, and Jeffrey Tice, MD — called the new recommendations “surprising” given the lack of new randomized control trial data to support the change as well as data that show breast cancer deaths have been decreasing among women, including younger women.
More specifically, breast cancer deaths for women under 50 have decreased from 5.9 to 3.9 per 100,000 individuals between 2000 and 2020 — a decline that can likely be attributed to better treatments rather than increased screening effectiveness, the Viewpoint authors said.
However, moving the screening age earlier would not markedly improve survival for most women, the authors argued. According to USPSTF modeling, starting mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 could avert only 1.3 additional breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened biennially and 1.8 additional breast cancer deaths among Black women.
Starting screening at 40, however, does come with an array of potential harms. These include 65 more benign biopsies per 1000 women screened, 1 in 2 women with a false-positive mammography result (503 per 1000), and 1 in 500 women with an over-diagnosed breast cancer, meaning the cancer would not have become clinically evident in their lifetime.
The use of digital breast tomosynthesis can slightly reduce the number of false-positives and benign biopsies compared to older mammography techniques, but these small improvements did not sway the overall pro-con assessment for the Viewpoint authors.
“False-positive results require additional imaging and are associated with anxiety for patients,” the authors noted. “Women who have benign biopsies may experience the potential adverse effects of biopsies, such as bleeding, infection, and scarring unnecessarily; and over-diagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment.”
Kenneth Lin, MD, MPH, family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency in Pennsylvania, agreed that starting mammograms at age 40 is not a change for the better.
Lin and colleagues conducted an analysis based on data from the USPSTF’s 2016 breast cancer screening report that similarly found 1 additional breast cancer death prevented per 1000 women screened starting at 40 vs 50, at a cost of 576 more false-positive results, 67 more benign breast biopsies, and 2 women diagnosed and treated unnecessarily.
Overall, “there is no compelling evidence to change our clinical approach to breast cancer screening for women in their 40s: individual decision-making based on patient preferences and values,” Lin wrote in a recent Medscape commentary.
But several experts not involved in the USPSTF recommendations agree with the change.
The updated recommendation to begin mammograms at age 40 for women at average risk “aligns with accumulating data suggesting that earlier and more frequent screening can save more lives, and is widely seen as a positive step,” said Lisa Abramson, MD, a radiologist specializing in breast imaging with Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
Melissa Fana, MD, a breast surgical oncologist at NYU Langone Health, agreed that the revised recommendation is justified and “will undoubtedly save lives.”
“The recent change in the screening recommendation was meant to be inclusive, and provide women, particularly women aged 40 to 49 the opportunity to screen with mammography,” Fana said.
One major argument in favor of earlier screening is that it will help address racial inequities in breast cancer diagnoses, treatment, and deaths. Despite a 5% lower incidence of breast cancer, Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with distant-stage cancer or more aggressive breast cancer subtypes, such as triple-negative, compared with White women, and are more likely to die from breast cancer.
“We hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” said Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG, an ob.gyn. at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, who coauthored the recent ACOG recommendations.
The Viewpoint authors Kerlikowske, Esserman and Tice agreed that Black women may benefit more from earlier screening. However, earlier screening does not address the underlying disparities in treatment and follow-up care for Black women, and it is unclear whether screening alone will help improve breast cancer mortality rates for Black women, the authors noted.
There is one place where experts seem to align: the importance of educating patients about their personal risk.
The Viewpoint authors favor a risk-based approach to help women decide whether to start screening before age 50.
“Engaging women in informed decision-making based on their invasive and advanced breast cancer risk would be a patient-centered approach toward tailored screening, informing when to consider starting screening and how often to screen,” the experts wrote.
For a woman to truly make an educated decision on whether she would like to screen or wait after age 40, she would at least need to know what her specific lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is, not the average risk is for American women in general, Fana told this news organization.
“Risk assessment calculators are widely available and include factors such as family history and reproductive history, and this information can evolve over time and affect lifetime risk,” Fana noted. But “some women just do not get this information.”
Abramson explained that ob.gyns. and primary care physicians will likely play a larger role in the early assessment of breast cancer risk, including discussions about genetic testing and personal risk factors starting as early as age 25.
“For clinicians, the emphasis may be on educating patients about their individual risk, ensuring timely mammograms, and referring higher-risk individuals for further testing or consultations with specialists,” Abramson added.
Esserman reported being a Blue Cross Medical Advisory Panel member, an uncompensated board member of Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, which funds the I-SPY trial through the University of California, San Francisco, and having an investigator-initiated trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) funded through UCSF by Moderna for a DCIS phase 1 study. Tice and Kerlikowske reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work. Abramson and Fana have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Last April, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its breast cancer screening guidelines to recommend average-risk women start their screening mammograms at age 40, instead of age 50, and continue every other year until age 74.
The USPSTF’s recent recommendations align with those from major organizations, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Radiology. The latest update comes from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which recommended a start age of 40 and continued screening either annually or every 2 years.
For USPSTF, the decision to recommend the earlier screening age, instead of keeping the choice an individualized one, was largely driven by the steady rise in breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, alongside evidence that Black women are more likely to get breast cancer younger and die from the disease compared with White women.
But is this recommendation to screen earlier a change for the better?
Opinions vary.
USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, believes the new recommendation is the right move.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Wong told Medscape last year.
However, in a recent Viewpoint in JAMA Internal Medicine, experts from the University of California San Francisco expressed their reservations about shifting the recommended screening age a decade earlier.
The trio — Karla Kerlikowske, MD, Laura Esserman, MD, and Jeffrey Tice, MD — called the new recommendations “surprising” given the lack of new randomized control trial data to support the change as well as data that show breast cancer deaths have been decreasing among women, including younger women.
More specifically, breast cancer deaths for women under 50 have decreased from 5.9 to 3.9 per 100,000 individuals between 2000 and 2020 — a decline that can likely be attributed to better treatments rather than increased screening effectiveness, the Viewpoint authors said.
However, moving the screening age earlier would not markedly improve survival for most women, the authors argued. According to USPSTF modeling, starting mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 could avert only 1.3 additional breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened biennially and 1.8 additional breast cancer deaths among Black women.
Starting screening at 40, however, does come with an array of potential harms. These include 65 more benign biopsies per 1000 women screened, 1 in 2 women with a false-positive mammography result (503 per 1000), and 1 in 500 women with an over-diagnosed breast cancer, meaning the cancer would not have become clinically evident in their lifetime.
The use of digital breast tomosynthesis can slightly reduce the number of false-positives and benign biopsies compared to older mammography techniques, but these small improvements did not sway the overall pro-con assessment for the Viewpoint authors.
“False-positive results require additional imaging and are associated with anxiety for patients,” the authors noted. “Women who have benign biopsies may experience the potential adverse effects of biopsies, such as bleeding, infection, and scarring unnecessarily; and over-diagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment.”
Kenneth Lin, MD, MPH, family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency in Pennsylvania, agreed that starting mammograms at age 40 is not a change for the better.
Lin and colleagues conducted an analysis based on data from the USPSTF’s 2016 breast cancer screening report that similarly found 1 additional breast cancer death prevented per 1000 women screened starting at 40 vs 50, at a cost of 576 more false-positive results, 67 more benign breast biopsies, and 2 women diagnosed and treated unnecessarily.
Overall, “there is no compelling evidence to change our clinical approach to breast cancer screening for women in their 40s: individual decision-making based on patient preferences and values,” Lin wrote in a recent Medscape commentary.
But several experts not involved in the USPSTF recommendations agree with the change.
The updated recommendation to begin mammograms at age 40 for women at average risk “aligns with accumulating data suggesting that earlier and more frequent screening can save more lives, and is widely seen as a positive step,” said Lisa Abramson, MD, a radiologist specializing in breast imaging with Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
Melissa Fana, MD, a breast surgical oncologist at NYU Langone Health, agreed that the revised recommendation is justified and “will undoubtedly save lives.”
“The recent change in the screening recommendation was meant to be inclusive, and provide women, particularly women aged 40 to 49 the opportunity to screen with mammography,” Fana said.
One major argument in favor of earlier screening is that it will help address racial inequities in breast cancer diagnoses, treatment, and deaths. Despite a 5% lower incidence of breast cancer, Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with distant-stage cancer or more aggressive breast cancer subtypes, such as triple-negative, compared with White women, and are more likely to die from breast cancer.
“We hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” said Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG, an ob.gyn. at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, who coauthored the recent ACOG recommendations.
The Viewpoint authors Kerlikowske, Esserman and Tice agreed that Black women may benefit more from earlier screening. However, earlier screening does not address the underlying disparities in treatment and follow-up care for Black women, and it is unclear whether screening alone will help improve breast cancer mortality rates for Black women, the authors noted.
There is one place where experts seem to align: the importance of educating patients about their personal risk.
The Viewpoint authors favor a risk-based approach to help women decide whether to start screening before age 50.
“Engaging women in informed decision-making based on their invasive and advanced breast cancer risk would be a patient-centered approach toward tailored screening, informing when to consider starting screening and how often to screen,” the experts wrote.
For a woman to truly make an educated decision on whether she would like to screen or wait after age 40, she would at least need to know what her specific lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is, not the average risk is for American women in general, Fana told this news organization.
“Risk assessment calculators are widely available and include factors such as family history and reproductive history, and this information can evolve over time and affect lifetime risk,” Fana noted. But “some women just do not get this information.”
Abramson explained that ob.gyns. and primary care physicians will likely play a larger role in the early assessment of breast cancer risk, including discussions about genetic testing and personal risk factors starting as early as age 25.
“For clinicians, the emphasis may be on educating patients about their individual risk, ensuring timely mammograms, and referring higher-risk individuals for further testing or consultations with specialists,” Abramson added.
Esserman reported being a Blue Cross Medical Advisory Panel member, an uncompensated board member of Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, which funds the I-SPY trial through the University of California, San Francisco, and having an investigator-initiated trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) funded through UCSF by Moderna for a DCIS phase 1 study. Tice and Kerlikowske reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work. Abramson and Fana have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Last April, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its breast cancer screening guidelines to recommend average-risk women start their screening mammograms at age 40, instead of age 50, and continue every other year until age 74.
The USPSTF’s recent recommendations align with those from major organizations, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Radiology. The latest update comes from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which recommended a start age of 40 and continued screening either annually or every 2 years.
For USPSTF, the decision to recommend the earlier screening age, instead of keeping the choice an individualized one, was largely driven by the steady rise in breast cancer diagnoses among women in their 40s, alongside evidence that Black women are more likely to get breast cancer younger and die from the disease compared with White women.
But is this recommendation to screen earlier a change for the better?
Opinions vary.
USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, believes the new recommendation is the right move.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Wong told Medscape last year.
However, in a recent Viewpoint in JAMA Internal Medicine, experts from the University of California San Francisco expressed their reservations about shifting the recommended screening age a decade earlier.
The trio — Karla Kerlikowske, MD, Laura Esserman, MD, and Jeffrey Tice, MD — called the new recommendations “surprising” given the lack of new randomized control trial data to support the change as well as data that show breast cancer deaths have been decreasing among women, including younger women.
More specifically, breast cancer deaths for women under 50 have decreased from 5.9 to 3.9 per 100,000 individuals between 2000 and 2020 — a decline that can likely be attributed to better treatments rather than increased screening effectiveness, the Viewpoint authors said.
However, moving the screening age earlier would not markedly improve survival for most women, the authors argued. According to USPSTF modeling, starting mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 could avert only 1.3 additional breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened biennially and 1.8 additional breast cancer deaths among Black women.
Starting screening at 40, however, does come with an array of potential harms. These include 65 more benign biopsies per 1000 women screened, 1 in 2 women with a false-positive mammography result (503 per 1000), and 1 in 500 women with an over-diagnosed breast cancer, meaning the cancer would not have become clinically evident in their lifetime.
The use of digital breast tomosynthesis can slightly reduce the number of false-positives and benign biopsies compared to older mammography techniques, but these small improvements did not sway the overall pro-con assessment for the Viewpoint authors.
“False-positive results require additional imaging and are associated with anxiety for patients,” the authors noted. “Women who have benign biopsies may experience the potential adverse effects of biopsies, such as bleeding, infection, and scarring unnecessarily; and over-diagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment.”
Kenneth Lin, MD, MPH, family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency in Pennsylvania, agreed that starting mammograms at age 40 is not a change for the better.
Lin and colleagues conducted an analysis based on data from the USPSTF’s 2016 breast cancer screening report that similarly found 1 additional breast cancer death prevented per 1000 women screened starting at 40 vs 50, at a cost of 576 more false-positive results, 67 more benign breast biopsies, and 2 women diagnosed and treated unnecessarily.
Overall, “there is no compelling evidence to change our clinical approach to breast cancer screening for women in their 40s: individual decision-making based on patient preferences and values,” Lin wrote in a recent Medscape commentary.
But several experts not involved in the USPSTF recommendations agree with the change.
The updated recommendation to begin mammograms at age 40 for women at average risk “aligns with accumulating data suggesting that earlier and more frequent screening can save more lives, and is widely seen as a positive step,” said Lisa Abramson, MD, a radiologist specializing in breast imaging with Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
Melissa Fana, MD, a breast surgical oncologist at NYU Langone Health, agreed that the revised recommendation is justified and “will undoubtedly save lives.”
“The recent change in the screening recommendation was meant to be inclusive, and provide women, particularly women aged 40 to 49 the opportunity to screen with mammography,” Fana said.
One major argument in favor of earlier screening is that it will help address racial inequities in breast cancer diagnoses, treatment, and deaths. Despite a 5% lower incidence of breast cancer, Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with distant-stage cancer or more aggressive breast cancer subtypes, such as triple-negative, compared with White women, and are more likely to die from breast cancer.
“We hope that the earlier initiation of mammography screening across the board will have a great net benefit in outcomes for Black women especially, who have been shown to have the poorest outcomes when it comes to breast cancer, in part because of long-standing inequities in social determinants of health,” said Cherie C. Hill, MD, FACOG, an ob.gyn. at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, who coauthored the recent ACOG recommendations.
The Viewpoint authors Kerlikowske, Esserman and Tice agreed that Black women may benefit more from earlier screening. However, earlier screening does not address the underlying disparities in treatment and follow-up care for Black women, and it is unclear whether screening alone will help improve breast cancer mortality rates for Black women, the authors noted.
There is one place where experts seem to align: the importance of educating patients about their personal risk.
The Viewpoint authors favor a risk-based approach to help women decide whether to start screening before age 50.
“Engaging women in informed decision-making based on their invasive and advanced breast cancer risk would be a patient-centered approach toward tailored screening, informing when to consider starting screening and how often to screen,” the experts wrote.
For a woman to truly make an educated decision on whether she would like to screen or wait after age 40, she would at least need to know what her specific lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is, not the average risk is for American women in general, Fana told this news organization.
“Risk assessment calculators are widely available and include factors such as family history and reproductive history, and this information can evolve over time and affect lifetime risk,” Fana noted. But “some women just do not get this information.”
Abramson explained that ob.gyns. and primary care physicians will likely play a larger role in the early assessment of breast cancer risk, including discussions about genetic testing and personal risk factors starting as early as age 25.
“For clinicians, the emphasis may be on educating patients about their individual risk, ensuring timely mammograms, and referring higher-risk individuals for further testing or consultations with specialists,” Abramson added.
Esserman reported being a Blue Cross Medical Advisory Panel member, an uncompensated board member of Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, which funds the I-SPY trial through the University of California, San Francisco, and having an investigator-initiated trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) funded through UCSF by Moderna for a DCIS phase 1 study. Tice and Kerlikowske reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work. Abramson and Fana have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Will Psychedelics Break the Major Depression Logjam?
With tens of millions of Euros in the offing, researchers across the European Union have eagerly taken up the gauntlet to find novel interventions for difficult-to-treat mental health and pain conditions. Their target is psychedelics, including classic compounds like psilocybin and atypical ones like ketamine and MDMA. Some of these still carry a stigma as party drugs and spiritual gateways to holotropic experiences.
Twelve groups make up the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology’s psychedelic research network. Along with several affiliates, the groups span nine countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Greece, and the United Kingdom) and are focused on the use of psychedelic compounds as potential treatments for psychiatric conditions like treatment-resistant depression, addiction, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anorexia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
One of the largest endeavors is PsyPal, a 4-year, randomized controlled trial investigating the potential of psilocybin for treating psychological distress in palliative care patients with life-limiting conditions. PsyPal is the first multisite clinical trial funded by the European Union to explore psychedelic-assisted therapy.
At PsyPal’s helm is Robert Schoevers, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and Department Head at University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, the Netherlands, a major hub for psychedelic research.
Schoevers is a bit of a pioneer who said he entered psychedelic research somewhat reluctantly. A decade ago, a colleague showed him a few papers on ketamine and depression. Because UMCG has a large population of patients with treatment-resistant depression, he agreed to do a pilot study. Since then, he has put together an interdisciplinary team of 25 researchers, published numerous papers, and currently has seven studies, including PsyPal, in various stages of progress.
Schoevers is also building a large national consortium that aims to investigate and, if shown effective, implement novel psychiatry treatments much more rapidly and efficiently than current drug development and approval processes, which can take 12 years or longer. He has just secured millions in government funding to start this process.
Next year, Schoevers and his team will decide to test either MDMA for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or psilocybin for depression in a large clinical trial, with the aim of getting a treatment as near to formal registration as possible. This will involve working with the European Medicines Agency and its Dutch counterpart, talking to experts who are familiar with the US Food and Drug Administration’s rejection of Lykos Therapeutics’ MDMA treatment for PTSD, and working directly with patients through the National Patient Alliance. The team is also talking to insurers and pharma companies.
The ultimate goal is to “see if we can build a platform in the Netherlands that would have a European perspective, serve as a point of entry for researchers with good ideas, and [attract] public funding as well as companies who have interesting compounds we think would be worthwhile to study,” Schoevers said.
His multiple endeavors emphasize a transdisciplinary and transdiagnostic approach he has been honing for decades. He and his colleagues are investigating the clinical, psychological, and neurobiological parallels between different treatment- resistant conditions and seeking to understand how contextual factors might influence patients, experiences, and outcomes.
Connecting the Dots
Jens H. van Dalfsen, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in biological psychiatry, is the principal investigator of another UMCG group looking into the neurobiological mechanisms of major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. His team’s strategy entails an elaborate coordination between the preclinical and clinical research settings.
For example, Sarah Massetti, a PhD candidate in biological psychiatry, is using blood samples collected in clinical trials to investigate the molecular mechanisms underpinning the neuroplasticity and immune-modulating effects produced by psychedelic compounds.
Another line of research spearheaded by Rutger Boesjes, a PhD candidate in biological psychiatry, is exploring the interactions between drugs like ketamine and the circadian system and how they might relate to antidepressant responses in animal models. It could be that the timing of administration of these drugs is relevant, he explained.
The Patient Factor
How psychedelics work and in whom is a big question for the UMCG team and across the research landscape.
“When researchers and the general public talk about psychedelics, they frequently refer to how they promote synaptic plasticity and new connections in the brain,” said van Dalfsen. “But traditional compounds also do that. So the ultimate question that we’ve been exploring is whether findings reflect an actual pharmacological effect or if expectancy also plays a role. In other words: How can we explain why psychedelics might or might not be effective in treatment-resistant patients?” he explained.
This is where the connection to the clinical experience becomes paramount and Joost Breeksema, PhD, comes in.
Breeksema divides his time between UMCG research and his role as executive director and co-founder of the Open Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing scientific psychedelic research. The work he’s doing outside the university is helping to frame the investigations of the wider group.
So far he has conducted two qualitative studies.
One was an off-label study in which patients with treatment-resistant depression were administered esketamine.
The other was a randomized clinical trial in which participants were blinded to a single 10- or 25-mg dose of psilocybin versus a 1-mg psilocybin microdose placebo that is too small to invoke any effects.
A key insight was the degree to which participants were unprepared for the intensity of their experiences, especially with regards to ketamine. Breeksema said the sessions might not have been so intense or negative for some participants had they been informed beforehand to expect the drugs could provoke “quite overwhelming experiences” and had they been accompanied by an experienced guide providing reassurance and support.
The format for the psilocybin trial met part of this criteria. Participants received a micro (placebo), medium, or high dose in a single session accompanied by two trained therapists. They then engaged in two sessions afterward to process their experiences. A single psilocybin experience appeared to be not enough or too much depending on the dose they were assigned and if they had prior experience with the compound.
Trial participants also felt they needed more help making sense of the experience. “This is a common and important theme,” said Breeksema. “Think about it. If you’ve been depressed for 10, 15 years and … you uncover something and break through something that’s been stuck, you need to process it.”
Jeanine Kamphuis, PhD, a psychiatrist and senior researcher at UMCG and one of the trial study co-authors, explained that they want to find a way to identify who will be too overwhelmed by these experiences if the dose should be adjusted or if some time needs to pass between dosing sessions. They also want to spend more time preparing patients for these sessions.
She emphasized that the studies have provided a reality check. “These are not wonder pills or wonder experiences. And in these types of patients, they’re not intended for a personal growth experience,” she said. “You have a patient who is sitting in front of you who seeks therapy and relief from very severe mood complaints, and the suffering is high,” she said, adding that expectancy bias further complicates patient participation and, likely, outcomes.
The Challenges
For all the potential and opportunity that psychedelics may hold for treatment, UMCG’s work has underscored some challenges.
The field of psychedelic research is characterized by methodological issues, explained van Dalfsen, such as blinding, expectancy, and overestimation of treatment effects. When looking at efficacy, “Is it the compound or the expectancy and promise? This is why it’s important to study how the drugs differ from each other in their biological effects and why they are or are not effective,” he said.
The team has also experienced issues with trial recruitment.
Martijn Godschalk, MD, a PhD candidate in psychiatry, has been addressing this problem while working on RESET-TRD, a phase 3, randomized controlled trial comparing an oral esketamine drink with electroconvulsive therapy in patients with treatment-resistant depression.
He’s been coordinating with local university hospitals, general hospitals, and municipal healthcare clinics to meet inclusion criteria and ensure the trial has enough power to demonstrate effectiveness. In turn, these sites are able to participate in a trial they wouldn’t normally be involved in due to lack of resources.
But Godschalk said he was concerned that many patients have gotten wind of the hype surrounding psychedelic treatments within psychiatry — a factor that has contributed to recruitment challenges. “There are a lot of patients who are interested in the non-registered drug and don’t necessarily have an interest in the other [control] arm,” he said.
Despite the challenges, the classic psychedelics such as MDMA and psilocybin “seem to catalyze a psychological process that may be harder to get with regular psychotherapies,” said Schoevers.
He remains cautious, noting there are still unanswered questions, such as who are the best candidates for these drugs and whether they might cause harm in certain patients while benefiting others. “I do think that this is the first time in 20 or 30 years that there is a group of potential treatments that would really make a difference.”
Schoevers received grants and other funding from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research & Development, Horizon 2020, Horizon 2023, the National Institute of Mental Health (USA), UMCG, Stichting tot Steun VCVGZ, Nationaal programma Groningen, Healthcare Innovation Funds, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Compass Pathways, Clexio Biosciences, and GH research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
With tens of millions of Euros in the offing, researchers across the European Union have eagerly taken up the gauntlet to find novel interventions for difficult-to-treat mental health and pain conditions. Their target is psychedelics, including classic compounds like psilocybin and atypical ones like ketamine and MDMA. Some of these still carry a stigma as party drugs and spiritual gateways to holotropic experiences.
Twelve groups make up the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology’s psychedelic research network. Along with several affiliates, the groups span nine countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Greece, and the United Kingdom) and are focused on the use of psychedelic compounds as potential treatments for psychiatric conditions like treatment-resistant depression, addiction, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anorexia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
One of the largest endeavors is PsyPal, a 4-year, randomized controlled trial investigating the potential of psilocybin for treating psychological distress in palliative care patients with life-limiting conditions. PsyPal is the first multisite clinical trial funded by the European Union to explore psychedelic-assisted therapy.
At PsyPal’s helm is Robert Schoevers, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and Department Head at University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, the Netherlands, a major hub for psychedelic research.
Schoevers is a bit of a pioneer who said he entered psychedelic research somewhat reluctantly. A decade ago, a colleague showed him a few papers on ketamine and depression. Because UMCG has a large population of patients with treatment-resistant depression, he agreed to do a pilot study. Since then, he has put together an interdisciplinary team of 25 researchers, published numerous papers, and currently has seven studies, including PsyPal, in various stages of progress.
Schoevers is also building a large national consortium that aims to investigate and, if shown effective, implement novel psychiatry treatments much more rapidly and efficiently than current drug development and approval processes, which can take 12 years or longer. He has just secured millions in government funding to start this process.
Next year, Schoevers and his team will decide to test either MDMA for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or psilocybin for depression in a large clinical trial, with the aim of getting a treatment as near to formal registration as possible. This will involve working with the European Medicines Agency and its Dutch counterpart, talking to experts who are familiar with the US Food and Drug Administration’s rejection of Lykos Therapeutics’ MDMA treatment for PTSD, and working directly with patients through the National Patient Alliance. The team is also talking to insurers and pharma companies.
The ultimate goal is to “see if we can build a platform in the Netherlands that would have a European perspective, serve as a point of entry for researchers with good ideas, and [attract] public funding as well as companies who have interesting compounds we think would be worthwhile to study,” Schoevers said.
His multiple endeavors emphasize a transdisciplinary and transdiagnostic approach he has been honing for decades. He and his colleagues are investigating the clinical, psychological, and neurobiological parallels between different treatment- resistant conditions and seeking to understand how contextual factors might influence patients, experiences, and outcomes.
Connecting the Dots
Jens H. van Dalfsen, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in biological psychiatry, is the principal investigator of another UMCG group looking into the neurobiological mechanisms of major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. His team’s strategy entails an elaborate coordination between the preclinical and clinical research settings.
For example, Sarah Massetti, a PhD candidate in biological psychiatry, is using blood samples collected in clinical trials to investigate the molecular mechanisms underpinning the neuroplasticity and immune-modulating effects produced by psychedelic compounds.
Another line of research spearheaded by Rutger Boesjes, a PhD candidate in biological psychiatry, is exploring the interactions between drugs like ketamine and the circadian system and how they might relate to antidepressant responses in animal models. It could be that the timing of administration of these drugs is relevant, he explained.
The Patient Factor
How psychedelics work and in whom is a big question for the UMCG team and across the research landscape.
“When researchers and the general public talk about psychedelics, they frequently refer to how they promote synaptic plasticity and new connections in the brain,” said van Dalfsen. “But traditional compounds also do that. So the ultimate question that we’ve been exploring is whether findings reflect an actual pharmacological effect or if expectancy also plays a role. In other words: How can we explain why psychedelics might or might not be effective in treatment-resistant patients?” he explained.
This is where the connection to the clinical experience becomes paramount and Joost Breeksema, PhD, comes in.
Breeksema divides his time between UMCG research and his role as executive director and co-founder of the Open Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing scientific psychedelic research. The work he’s doing outside the university is helping to frame the investigations of the wider group.
So far he has conducted two qualitative studies.
One was an off-label study in which patients with treatment-resistant depression were administered esketamine.
The other was a randomized clinical trial in which participants were blinded to a single 10- or 25-mg dose of psilocybin versus a 1-mg psilocybin microdose placebo that is too small to invoke any effects.
A key insight was the degree to which participants were unprepared for the intensity of their experiences, especially with regards to ketamine. Breeksema said the sessions might not have been so intense or negative for some participants had they been informed beforehand to expect the drugs could provoke “quite overwhelming experiences” and had they been accompanied by an experienced guide providing reassurance and support.
The format for the psilocybin trial met part of this criteria. Participants received a micro (placebo), medium, or high dose in a single session accompanied by two trained therapists. They then engaged in two sessions afterward to process their experiences. A single psilocybin experience appeared to be not enough or too much depending on the dose they were assigned and if they had prior experience with the compound.
Trial participants also felt they needed more help making sense of the experience. “This is a common and important theme,” said Breeksema. “Think about it. If you’ve been depressed for 10, 15 years and … you uncover something and break through something that’s been stuck, you need to process it.”
Jeanine Kamphuis, PhD, a psychiatrist and senior researcher at UMCG and one of the trial study co-authors, explained that they want to find a way to identify who will be too overwhelmed by these experiences if the dose should be adjusted or if some time needs to pass between dosing sessions. They also want to spend more time preparing patients for these sessions.
She emphasized that the studies have provided a reality check. “These are not wonder pills or wonder experiences. And in these types of patients, they’re not intended for a personal growth experience,” she said. “You have a patient who is sitting in front of you who seeks therapy and relief from very severe mood complaints, and the suffering is high,” she said, adding that expectancy bias further complicates patient participation and, likely, outcomes.
The Challenges
For all the potential and opportunity that psychedelics may hold for treatment, UMCG’s work has underscored some challenges.
The field of psychedelic research is characterized by methodological issues, explained van Dalfsen, such as blinding, expectancy, and overestimation of treatment effects. When looking at efficacy, “Is it the compound or the expectancy and promise? This is why it’s important to study how the drugs differ from each other in their biological effects and why they are or are not effective,” he said.
The team has also experienced issues with trial recruitment.
Martijn Godschalk, MD, a PhD candidate in psychiatry, has been addressing this problem while working on RESET-TRD, a phase 3, randomized controlled trial comparing an oral esketamine drink with electroconvulsive therapy in patients with treatment-resistant depression.
He’s been coordinating with local university hospitals, general hospitals, and municipal healthcare clinics to meet inclusion criteria and ensure the trial has enough power to demonstrate effectiveness. In turn, these sites are able to participate in a trial they wouldn’t normally be involved in due to lack of resources.
But Godschalk said he was concerned that many patients have gotten wind of the hype surrounding psychedelic treatments within psychiatry — a factor that has contributed to recruitment challenges. “There are a lot of patients who are interested in the non-registered drug and don’t necessarily have an interest in the other [control] arm,” he said.
Despite the challenges, the classic psychedelics such as MDMA and psilocybin “seem to catalyze a psychological process that may be harder to get with regular psychotherapies,” said Schoevers.
He remains cautious, noting there are still unanswered questions, such as who are the best candidates for these drugs and whether they might cause harm in certain patients while benefiting others. “I do think that this is the first time in 20 or 30 years that there is a group of potential treatments that would really make a difference.”
Schoevers received grants and other funding from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research & Development, Horizon 2020, Horizon 2023, the National Institute of Mental Health (USA), UMCG, Stichting tot Steun VCVGZ, Nationaal programma Groningen, Healthcare Innovation Funds, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Compass Pathways, Clexio Biosciences, and GH research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
With tens of millions of Euros in the offing, researchers across the European Union have eagerly taken up the gauntlet to find novel interventions for difficult-to-treat mental health and pain conditions. Their target is psychedelics, including classic compounds like psilocybin and atypical ones like ketamine and MDMA. Some of these still carry a stigma as party drugs and spiritual gateways to holotropic experiences.
Twelve groups make up the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology’s psychedelic research network. Along with several affiliates, the groups span nine countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Greece, and the United Kingdom) and are focused on the use of psychedelic compounds as potential treatments for psychiatric conditions like treatment-resistant depression, addiction, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anorexia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
One of the largest endeavors is PsyPal, a 4-year, randomized controlled trial investigating the potential of psilocybin for treating psychological distress in palliative care patients with life-limiting conditions. PsyPal is the first multisite clinical trial funded by the European Union to explore psychedelic-assisted therapy.
At PsyPal’s helm is Robert Schoevers, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and Department Head at University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, the Netherlands, a major hub for psychedelic research.
Schoevers is a bit of a pioneer who said he entered psychedelic research somewhat reluctantly. A decade ago, a colleague showed him a few papers on ketamine and depression. Because UMCG has a large population of patients with treatment-resistant depression, he agreed to do a pilot study. Since then, he has put together an interdisciplinary team of 25 researchers, published numerous papers, and currently has seven studies, including PsyPal, in various stages of progress.
Schoevers is also building a large national consortium that aims to investigate and, if shown effective, implement novel psychiatry treatments much more rapidly and efficiently than current drug development and approval processes, which can take 12 years or longer. He has just secured millions in government funding to start this process.
Next year, Schoevers and his team will decide to test either MDMA for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or psilocybin for depression in a large clinical trial, with the aim of getting a treatment as near to formal registration as possible. This will involve working with the European Medicines Agency and its Dutch counterpart, talking to experts who are familiar with the US Food and Drug Administration’s rejection of Lykos Therapeutics’ MDMA treatment for PTSD, and working directly with patients through the National Patient Alliance. The team is also talking to insurers and pharma companies.
The ultimate goal is to “see if we can build a platform in the Netherlands that would have a European perspective, serve as a point of entry for researchers with good ideas, and [attract] public funding as well as companies who have interesting compounds we think would be worthwhile to study,” Schoevers said.
His multiple endeavors emphasize a transdisciplinary and transdiagnostic approach he has been honing for decades. He and his colleagues are investigating the clinical, psychological, and neurobiological parallels between different treatment- resistant conditions and seeking to understand how contextual factors might influence patients, experiences, and outcomes.
Connecting the Dots
Jens H. van Dalfsen, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in biological psychiatry, is the principal investigator of another UMCG group looking into the neurobiological mechanisms of major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. His team’s strategy entails an elaborate coordination between the preclinical and clinical research settings.
For example, Sarah Massetti, a PhD candidate in biological psychiatry, is using blood samples collected in clinical trials to investigate the molecular mechanisms underpinning the neuroplasticity and immune-modulating effects produced by psychedelic compounds.
Another line of research spearheaded by Rutger Boesjes, a PhD candidate in biological psychiatry, is exploring the interactions between drugs like ketamine and the circadian system and how they might relate to antidepressant responses in animal models. It could be that the timing of administration of these drugs is relevant, he explained.
The Patient Factor
How psychedelics work and in whom is a big question for the UMCG team and across the research landscape.
“When researchers and the general public talk about psychedelics, they frequently refer to how they promote synaptic plasticity and new connections in the brain,” said van Dalfsen. “But traditional compounds also do that. So the ultimate question that we’ve been exploring is whether findings reflect an actual pharmacological effect or if expectancy also plays a role. In other words: How can we explain why psychedelics might or might not be effective in treatment-resistant patients?” he explained.
This is where the connection to the clinical experience becomes paramount and Joost Breeksema, PhD, comes in.
Breeksema divides his time between UMCG research and his role as executive director and co-founder of the Open Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing scientific psychedelic research. The work he’s doing outside the university is helping to frame the investigations of the wider group.
So far he has conducted two qualitative studies.
One was an off-label study in which patients with treatment-resistant depression were administered esketamine.
The other was a randomized clinical trial in which participants were blinded to a single 10- or 25-mg dose of psilocybin versus a 1-mg psilocybin microdose placebo that is too small to invoke any effects.
A key insight was the degree to which participants were unprepared for the intensity of their experiences, especially with regards to ketamine. Breeksema said the sessions might not have been so intense or negative for some participants had they been informed beforehand to expect the drugs could provoke “quite overwhelming experiences” and had they been accompanied by an experienced guide providing reassurance and support.
The format for the psilocybin trial met part of this criteria. Participants received a micro (placebo), medium, or high dose in a single session accompanied by two trained therapists. They then engaged in two sessions afterward to process their experiences. A single psilocybin experience appeared to be not enough or too much depending on the dose they were assigned and if they had prior experience with the compound.
Trial participants also felt they needed more help making sense of the experience. “This is a common and important theme,” said Breeksema. “Think about it. If you’ve been depressed for 10, 15 years and … you uncover something and break through something that’s been stuck, you need to process it.”
Jeanine Kamphuis, PhD, a psychiatrist and senior researcher at UMCG and one of the trial study co-authors, explained that they want to find a way to identify who will be too overwhelmed by these experiences if the dose should be adjusted or if some time needs to pass between dosing sessions. They also want to spend more time preparing patients for these sessions.
She emphasized that the studies have provided a reality check. “These are not wonder pills or wonder experiences. And in these types of patients, they’re not intended for a personal growth experience,” she said. “You have a patient who is sitting in front of you who seeks therapy and relief from very severe mood complaints, and the suffering is high,” she said, adding that expectancy bias further complicates patient participation and, likely, outcomes.
The Challenges
For all the potential and opportunity that psychedelics may hold for treatment, UMCG’s work has underscored some challenges.
The field of psychedelic research is characterized by methodological issues, explained van Dalfsen, such as blinding, expectancy, and overestimation of treatment effects. When looking at efficacy, “Is it the compound or the expectancy and promise? This is why it’s important to study how the drugs differ from each other in their biological effects and why they are or are not effective,” he said.
The team has also experienced issues with trial recruitment.
Martijn Godschalk, MD, a PhD candidate in psychiatry, has been addressing this problem while working on RESET-TRD, a phase 3, randomized controlled trial comparing an oral esketamine drink with electroconvulsive therapy in patients with treatment-resistant depression.
He’s been coordinating with local university hospitals, general hospitals, and municipal healthcare clinics to meet inclusion criteria and ensure the trial has enough power to demonstrate effectiveness. In turn, these sites are able to participate in a trial they wouldn’t normally be involved in due to lack of resources.
But Godschalk said he was concerned that many patients have gotten wind of the hype surrounding psychedelic treatments within psychiatry — a factor that has contributed to recruitment challenges. “There are a lot of patients who are interested in the non-registered drug and don’t necessarily have an interest in the other [control] arm,” he said.
Despite the challenges, the classic psychedelics such as MDMA and psilocybin “seem to catalyze a psychological process that may be harder to get with regular psychotherapies,” said Schoevers.
He remains cautious, noting there are still unanswered questions, such as who are the best candidates for these drugs and whether they might cause harm in certain patients while benefiting others. “I do think that this is the first time in 20 or 30 years that there is a group of potential treatments that would really make a difference.”
Schoevers received grants and other funding from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research & Development, Horizon 2020, Horizon 2023, the National Institute of Mental Health (USA), UMCG, Stichting tot Steun VCVGZ, Nationaal programma Groningen, Healthcare Innovation Funds, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Compass Pathways, Clexio Biosciences, and GH research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.