Feature

Vaccines work pretty well. But with a little help, they could work better.

Stanford researchers have developed a new vaccine helper that combines two kinds of adjuvants, ingredients that improve a vaccine’s efficacy, in a novel, customizable system.

In lab tests, the experimental additive improved the effectiveness of COVID-19 and HIV vaccine candidates, though it could be adapted to stimulate immune responses to a variety of pathogens, the researchers said. It could also be used one day to fine-tune vaccines for vulnerable groups like young children, older adults, and those with compromised immune systems.

“Current vaccines are not perfect,” said lead study author Ben Ou, a PhD candidate and researcher in the lab of Eric Appel, PhD, an associate professor of materials science and engineering, at Stanford University in California. “Many fail to generate long-lasting immunity or immunity against closely related strains [such as] flu or COVID vaccines. One way to improve them is to design more potent vaccine adjuvants.”

The study marks an advance in an area of growing scientific interest: Combining different adjuvants to enhance the immune-stimulating effect.

The Stanford scientists developed sphere-shaped nanoparticles, like tiny round cages, made of saponins, immune-stimulating molecules common in adjuvant development. To these nanoparticles, they attached Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, molecules that have become a focus in vaccine research because they stimulate a variety of immune responses.

Dr. Ou and the team tested the new adjuvant platform in COVID and HIV vaccines, comparing it to vaccines containing alum, a widely used adjuvant. (Alum is not used in COVID vaccines available in the United States.)

The nanoparticle-adjuvanted vaccines triggered stronger, longer-lasting effects. 

Notably, the combination of the new adjuvant system with a SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccine was effective in mice against the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and against Delta, Omicron, and other variants that emerged in the months and years after the initial outbreak. 

“Since our nanoparticle adjuvant platform is more potent than traditional/clinical vaccine adjuvants,” Dr. Ou said, “we expected mice to produce broadly neutralizing antibodies and better breadth responses.”
 

100 Years of Adjuvants

The first vaccine adjuvants were aluminum salts mixed into shots against pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus in the 1920s. Today, alum is still used in many vaccines, including shots for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis; hepatitis A and B; human papillomavirus; and pneumococcal disease.

But since the 1990s, new adjuvants have come on the scene. Saponin-based compounds, harvested from the soapbark tree, are used in the Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted; a synthetic DNA adjuvant in the Heplisav-B vaccine against hepatitis B; and oil in water adjuvants using squalene in the Fluad and Fluad Quadrivalent influenza vaccines. Other vaccines, including those for chickenpox, cholera, measles, mumps, rubella, and mRNA-based COVID vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, don’t contain adjuvants. 

TLR agonists have recently become research hotspots in vaccine science. 

“TLR agonists activate the innate immune system, putting it on a heightened alert state that can result in a higher antibody production and longer-lasting protection,” said David Burkhart, PhD, a research professor in biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Montana in Missoula. He is also the chief operating officer of Inimmune, a biotech company developing vaccines and immunotherapies.

Dr. Burkhart studies TLR agonists in vaccines and other applications. “Different combinations activate different parts of the immune system,” he said. “TLR4 might activate the army, while TLR7 might activate the air force. You might need both in one vaccine.”

TLR agonists have also shown promise against Alzheimer’s disease, allergies, cancer, and even addiction. In immune’s experimental immunotherapy using TLR agonists for advanced solid tumors has just entered human trials, and the company is looking at a TLR agonist therapy for allergic rhinitis. 
 

Combining Forces

In the new study, researchers tested five different combinations of TLR agonists hooked to the saponin nanoparticle framework. Each elicited a slightly different response from the immune cells. 

“Our immune systems generate different downstream immune responses based on which TLRs are activated,” Dr. Ou said.

Ultimately, the advance could spur the development of vaccines tuned for stronger immune protection.

“We need different immune responses to fight different types of pathogens,” Dr. Ou said. “Depending on what specific virus/disease the vaccine is formulated for, activation of one specific TLR may confer better protection than another TLR.”

According to Dr. Burkhart, combining a saponin with a TLR agonist has found success before.

Biopharma company GSK (formerly GlaxoSmithKline) used the combination in its AS01 adjuvant, in the vaccine Shingrix against herpes zoster. The live-attenuated yellow fever vaccine, given to more than 600 million people around the world and considered one of the most powerful vaccines ever developed, uses several TLR agonists. 

The Stanford paper, Dr. Burkhart said, “is a nice demonstration of the enhanced efficacy [that] adjuvants can provide to vaccines by exploiting the synergy different adjuvants and TLR agonists can provide when used in combination.”
 

Tailoring Vaccines

The customizable aspect of TLR agonists is important too, Dr. Burkhart said. 

“The human immune system changes dramatically from birth to childhood into adulthood into older maturity,” he said. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all. Vaccines need to be tailored to these populations for maximum effectiveness and safety. TLRAs [TLR agonists] are a highly valuable tool in the vaccine toolbox. I think it’s inevitable we’ll have more in the future.”

That’s what the Stanford researchers hope for.

They noted in the study that the nanoparticle platform could easily be used to test different TLR agonist adjuvant combinations in vaccines.

But human studies are still a ways off. Tests in larger animals would likely come next, Dr. Ou said. 

“We now have a single nanoparticle adjuvant platform with formulations containing different TLRs,” Dr. Ou said. “Scientists can pick which specific formulation is the most suitable for their needs.”

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

Vaccines work pretty well. But with a little help, they could work better.

Stanford researchers have developed a new vaccine helper that combines two kinds of adjuvants, ingredients that improve a vaccine’s efficacy, in a novel, customizable system.

In lab tests, the experimental additive improved the effectiveness of COVID-19 and HIV vaccine candidates, though it could be adapted to stimulate immune responses to a variety of pathogens, the researchers said. It could also be used one day to fine-tune vaccines for vulnerable groups like young children, older adults, and those with compromised immune systems.

“Current vaccines are not perfect,” said lead study author Ben Ou, a PhD candidate and researcher in the lab of Eric Appel, PhD, an associate professor of materials science and engineering, at Stanford University in California. “Many fail to generate long-lasting immunity or immunity against closely related strains [such as] flu or COVID vaccines. One way to improve them is to design more potent vaccine adjuvants.”

The study marks an advance in an area of growing scientific interest: Combining different adjuvants to enhance the immune-stimulating effect.

The Stanford scientists developed sphere-shaped nanoparticles, like tiny round cages, made of saponins, immune-stimulating molecules common in adjuvant development. To these nanoparticles, they attached Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, molecules that have become a focus in vaccine research because they stimulate a variety of immune responses.

Dr. Ou and the team tested the new adjuvant platform in COVID and HIV vaccines, comparing it to vaccines containing alum, a widely used adjuvant. (Alum is not used in COVID vaccines available in the United States.)

The nanoparticle-adjuvanted vaccines triggered stronger, longer-lasting effects. 

Notably, the combination of the new adjuvant system with a SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccine was effective in mice against the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and against Delta, Omicron, and other variants that emerged in the months and years after the initial outbreak. 

“Since our nanoparticle adjuvant platform is more potent than traditional/clinical vaccine adjuvants,” Dr. Ou said, “we expected mice to produce broadly neutralizing antibodies and better breadth responses.”
 

100 Years of Adjuvants

The first vaccine adjuvants were aluminum salts mixed into shots against pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus in the 1920s. Today, alum is still used in many vaccines, including shots for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis; hepatitis A and B; human papillomavirus; and pneumococcal disease.

But since the 1990s, new adjuvants have come on the scene. Saponin-based compounds, harvested from the soapbark tree, are used in the Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted; a synthetic DNA adjuvant in the Heplisav-B vaccine against hepatitis B; and oil in water adjuvants using squalene in the Fluad and Fluad Quadrivalent influenza vaccines. Other vaccines, including those for chickenpox, cholera, measles, mumps, rubella, and mRNA-based COVID vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, don’t contain adjuvants. 

TLR agonists have recently become research hotspots in vaccine science. 

“TLR agonists activate the innate immune system, putting it on a heightened alert state that can result in a higher antibody production and longer-lasting protection,” said David Burkhart, PhD, a research professor in biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Montana in Missoula. He is also the chief operating officer of Inimmune, a biotech company developing vaccines and immunotherapies.

Dr. Burkhart studies TLR agonists in vaccines and other applications. “Different combinations activate different parts of the immune system,” he said. “TLR4 might activate the army, while TLR7 might activate the air force. You might need both in one vaccine.”

TLR agonists have also shown promise against Alzheimer’s disease, allergies, cancer, and even addiction. In immune’s experimental immunotherapy using TLR agonists for advanced solid tumors has just entered human trials, and the company is looking at a TLR agonist therapy for allergic rhinitis. 
 

Combining Forces

In the new study, researchers tested five different combinations of TLR agonists hooked to the saponin nanoparticle framework. Each elicited a slightly different response from the immune cells. 

“Our immune systems generate different downstream immune responses based on which TLRs are activated,” Dr. Ou said.

Ultimately, the advance could spur the development of vaccines tuned for stronger immune protection.

“We need different immune responses to fight different types of pathogens,” Dr. Ou said. “Depending on what specific virus/disease the vaccine is formulated for, activation of one specific TLR may confer better protection than another TLR.”

According to Dr. Burkhart, combining a saponin with a TLR agonist has found success before.

Biopharma company GSK (formerly GlaxoSmithKline) used the combination in its AS01 adjuvant, in the vaccine Shingrix against herpes zoster. The live-attenuated yellow fever vaccine, given to more than 600 million people around the world and considered one of the most powerful vaccines ever developed, uses several TLR agonists. 

The Stanford paper, Dr. Burkhart said, “is a nice demonstration of the enhanced efficacy [that] adjuvants can provide to vaccines by exploiting the synergy different adjuvants and TLR agonists can provide when used in combination.”
 

Tailoring Vaccines

The customizable aspect of TLR agonists is important too, Dr. Burkhart said. 

“The human immune system changes dramatically from birth to childhood into adulthood into older maturity,” he said. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all. Vaccines need to be tailored to these populations for maximum effectiveness and safety. TLRAs [TLR agonists] are a highly valuable tool in the vaccine toolbox. I think it’s inevitable we’ll have more in the future.”

That’s what the Stanford researchers hope for.

They noted in the study that the nanoparticle platform could easily be used to test different TLR agonist adjuvant combinations in vaccines.

But human studies are still a ways off. Tests in larger animals would likely come next, Dr. Ou said. 

“We now have a single nanoparticle adjuvant platform with formulations containing different TLRs,” Dr. Ou said. “Scientists can pick which specific formulation is the most suitable for their needs.”

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

Vaccines work pretty well. But with a little help, they could work better.

Stanford researchers have developed a new vaccine helper that combines two kinds of adjuvants, ingredients that improve a vaccine’s efficacy, in a novel, customizable system.

In lab tests, the experimental additive improved the effectiveness of COVID-19 and HIV vaccine candidates, though it could be adapted to stimulate immune responses to a variety of pathogens, the researchers said. It could also be used one day to fine-tune vaccines for vulnerable groups like young children, older adults, and those with compromised immune systems.

“Current vaccines are not perfect,” said lead study author Ben Ou, a PhD candidate and researcher in the lab of Eric Appel, PhD, an associate professor of materials science and engineering, at Stanford University in California. “Many fail to generate long-lasting immunity or immunity against closely related strains [such as] flu or COVID vaccines. One way to improve them is to design more potent vaccine adjuvants.”

The study marks an advance in an area of growing scientific interest: Combining different adjuvants to enhance the immune-stimulating effect.

The Stanford scientists developed sphere-shaped nanoparticles, like tiny round cages, made of saponins, immune-stimulating molecules common in adjuvant development. To these nanoparticles, they attached Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, molecules that have become a focus in vaccine research because they stimulate a variety of immune responses.

Dr. Ou and the team tested the new adjuvant platform in COVID and HIV vaccines, comparing it to vaccines containing alum, a widely used adjuvant. (Alum is not used in COVID vaccines available in the United States.)

The nanoparticle-adjuvanted vaccines triggered stronger, longer-lasting effects. 

Notably, the combination of the new adjuvant system with a SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccine was effective in mice against the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and against Delta, Omicron, and other variants that emerged in the months and years after the initial outbreak. 

“Since our nanoparticle adjuvant platform is more potent than traditional/clinical vaccine adjuvants,” Dr. Ou said, “we expected mice to produce broadly neutralizing antibodies and better breadth responses.”
 

100 Years of Adjuvants

The first vaccine adjuvants were aluminum salts mixed into shots against pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus in the 1920s. Today, alum is still used in many vaccines, including shots for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis; hepatitis A and B; human papillomavirus; and pneumococcal disease.

But since the 1990s, new adjuvants have come on the scene. Saponin-based compounds, harvested from the soapbark tree, are used in the Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted; a synthetic DNA adjuvant in the Heplisav-B vaccine against hepatitis B; and oil in water adjuvants using squalene in the Fluad and Fluad Quadrivalent influenza vaccines. Other vaccines, including those for chickenpox, cholera, measles, mumps, rubella, and mRNA-based COVID vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, don’t contain adjuvants. 

TLR agonists have recently become research hotspots in vaccine science. 

“TLR agonists activate the innate immune system, putting it on a heightened alert state that can result in a higher antibody production and longer-lasting protection,” said David Burkhart, PhD, a research professor in biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Montana in Missoula. He is also the chief operating officer of Inimmune, a biotech company developing vaccines and immunotherapies.

Dr. Burkhart studies TLR agonists in vaccines and other applications. “Different combinations activate different parts of the immune system,” he said. “TLR4 might activate the army, while TLR7 might activate the air force. You might need both in one vaccine.”

TLR agonists have also shown promise against Alzheimer’s disease, allergies, cancer, and even addiction. In immune’s experimental immunotherapy using TLR agonists for advanced solid tumors has just entered human trials, and the company is looking at a TLR agonist therapy for allergic rhinitis. 
 

Combining Forces

In the new study, researchers tested five different combinations of TLR agonists hooked to the saponin nanoparticle framework. Each elicited a slightly different response from the immune cells. 

“Our immune systems generate different downstream immune responses based on which TLRs are activated,” Dr. Ou said.

Ultimately, the advance could spur the development of vaccines tuned for stronger immune protection.

“We need different immune responses to fight different types of pathogens,” Dr. Ou said. “Depending on what specific virus/disease the vaccine is formulated for, activation of one specific TLR may confer better protection than another TLR.”

According to Dr. Burkhart, combining a saponin with a TLR agonist has found success before.

Biopharma company GSK (formerly GlaxoSmithKline) used the combination in its AS01 adjuvant, in the vaccine Shingrix against herpes zoster. The live-attenuated yellow fever vaccine, given to more than 600 million people around the world and considered one of the most powerful vaccines ever developed, uses several TLR agonists. 

The Stanford paper, Dr. Burkhart said, “is a nice demonstration of the enhanced efficacy [that] adjuvants can provide to vaccines by exploiting the synergy different adjuvants and TLR agonists can provide when used in combination.”
 

Tailoring Vaccines

The customizable aspect of TLR agonists is important too, Dr. Burkhart said. 

“The human immune system changes dramatically from birth to childhood into adulthood into older maturity,” he said. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all. Vaccines need to be tailored to these populations for maximum effectiveness and safety. TLRAs [TLR agonists] are a highly valuable tool in the vaccine toolbox. I think it’s inevitable we’ll have more in the future.”

That’s what the Stanford researchers hope for.

They noted in the study that the nanoparticle platform could easily be used to test different TLR agonist adjuvant combinations in vaccines.

But human studies are still a ways off. Tests in larger animals would likely come next, Dr. Ou said. 

“We now have a single nanoparticle adjuvant platform with formulations containing different TLRs,” Dr. Ou said. “Scientists can pick which specific formulation is the most suitable for their needs.”

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

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a significant global health concern, accounting for approximately 5% of all disease and injury. In the United States, the prevalence of ALD has increased since 2014, and the trajectory accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ALD encompasses a spectrum of diseases that includes steatosis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as related complications. Although earlier stages of ALD may be asymptomatic, hepatologists and gastroenterologists rarely see patients at this point.

“Unfortunately, patients with ALD more often present in late stages of disease (decompensated cirrhosis) as compared with other chronic liver diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease or hepatitis C,” Doug A. Simonetto, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Fellowship Program at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told this news organization.

Recent data have identified three demographic groups experiencing higher rates of ALD relative to previous periods and who may therefore require special attention. Understanding what makes these groups increasingly susceptible to ALD may allow for improved screening, earlier diagnosis, and potentially the prevention of its most dire consequences.
 

As Women Consume More Alcohol, ALD Follows

Historically, men have had higher rates of alcohol use, heavy drinking, and alcohol disorders than women. But this gender gap has begun to narrow.

Men born in the early 1900s were 2.2 times more likely to drink alcohol and 3.6 times more likely to experience alcohol-related harms than women, according to a 2016 meta-analysis. By the end of the 1990s, however, women’s drinking had begun to catch up. Men still led in these categories, but only by 1.1 and 1.3 times, respectively.

Rates of binge drinking (defined as at least five drinks in men or at least four drinks in women in an approximately 2-hour period) are also converging between the sexes. The authors of a longitudinal analysis hypothesized that an uptick in young women reporting drinking for social reasons — from 53% in 1987 to 87% in 2020 — was a possible cause.

Greater alcohol consumption among women has translated into higher rates of ALD. Analyzing data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, which looked at hundreds of diseases across 204 countries and territories, researchers reported that the worldwide prevalence of ALD among young women (15-49 years) rose within the past decade. Those in the 20- to 24-year-old age group had the most significant increases in ALD prevalence rates.

Recent US statistics highlight the relative imbalance in ALD’s impact on women, according to George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

“The age-adjusted death rate from alcohol-associated liver cirrhosis increased by 47% between 2000 and 2019, with larger increases for females than for males (83.5% compared to 33%),” Dr. Koob told this news organization. “Larger increases for women are consistent with a general increase in alcohol use among adult women and larger increases in alcohol-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

Physiologically, women have a higher risk than men of developing ALD and more severe disease, even at lower levels of alcohol exposure. According to a 2021 review, several proposed mechanisms might play a role, including differences in alcohol metabolism and first-pass metabolism, hormones, and endotoxin and Kupffer cell activation.

Crucially, women are less likely than men to receive in-person therapy or approved medications for alcohol use disorder, according to a 2019 analysis of over 66,000 privately insured adult patients.
 

Certain Ethnic, Racial Minorities Have Higher Rates of ALD

In the United States, rates of ALD and associated complications are higher among certain minority groups, most prominently Hispanic and Native American individuals.

A 2021 analysis of three large US databases found that Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a 17% increased risk for acute-on-chronic liver failure in patients with ALD-related admissions.

Data also show that Hispanic and White patients have a higher proportion of alcoholic hepatitis than African American patients. And for Hispanic patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis, they incur significantly more total hospital costs despite having similar mortality rates as White patients.

ALD-related mortality appears higher within certain subgroups of Hispanic patient populations. NIAAA surveillance reports track deaths resulting from cirrhosis in the White, Black, and Hispanic populations. From 2000 to 2019, these statistics show that although death rates from cirrhosis decreased for Hispanic White men, they increased for Hispanic White women, Dr. Koob said.

The latest data show that Native American populations are experiencing ALD at relatively higher rates than other racial/ethnic groups as well. An analysis of nearly 200,000 cirrhosis-related hospitalizations found that ALD, including alcoholic hepatitis, was the most common etiology in American Indian/Alaska Native patients. A separate analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database revealed that discharges resulting from ALD were disproportionately higher among Native American women.

As with Hispanic populations, ALD-associated mortality rates are also higher in Native American populations. The death rate from ALD increased for all racial and ethnic groups by 23.4% from 2019 to 2020, but the biggest increase occurred in the American Indian or Alaska Native populations (34.3% increase, from 20.1 to 27 per 100,000 people). Additionally, over the first two decades of the 21st century, mortality rates resulting from cirrhosis were highest among the American Indian and Alaska Native populations, according to a recently published systematic analysis of US health disparities across five racial/ethnic groups.

Discrepancies in these and other minority groups may be due partly to genetic mechanisms, such as the relatively higher frequency of the PNPLA3 G/G polymorphism, a known risk factor for the development of advanced ALD, among those with Native American ancestry. A host of complex socioeconomic factors, such as income discrepancies and access to care, likely contribute too.

Evidence suggests that alcohol screening interventions are not applied equally across various racial and ethnic groups, Dr. Koob noted.

“For instance, Subbaraman and colleagues reported that, compared to non-Hispanic White patients, those who identify as Hispanic, Black, or other race or ethnicity were less likely to be screened for alcohol use during visits to healthcare providers. This was particularly true for those with a high school education or less,” he told this news organization. “However, other studies have not found such disparities.”
 

ALD Rates High in Young Adults, but the Tide May Be Changing

Globally, the prevalence of ALD has increased among both adolescents and young adults since the beginning of the 21st century. The global incidence of alcohol-associated hepatitis in recent years has been greatest among those aged 15-44 years.

In the United States, the increasing rate of ALD-related hospitalizations is primarily driven by the rise in cases of alcoholic hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure among those aged 35 years and younger.

ALD is now the most common indication for liver transplant in those younger than 40 years of age, having increased fourfold between 2003 and 2018.

From 2009 to 2016, people aged 25-34 years experienced the highest average annual increase in cirrhosis-related mortality (10.5%), a trend the authors noted was “driven entirely by alcohol-related liver disease.”

Younger adults may be more susceptible to ALD due to the way they drink.

In a 2021 analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database, the weighted prevalence of harmful alcohol use was 29.3% in those younger than 35 years, compared with 16.9% in those aged 35-64 years. Higher blood alcohol levels resulting from binge drinking may make patients more susceptible to bacterial translocation and liver fibrosis and can increase the likelihood of cirrhosis in those with an underlying metabolic syndrome.

Yet, Dr. Koob said, thinking of “young adults” as one cohort may be misguided because he’s found very different attitudes toward alcohol within that population. Cross-sectional survey data obtained from more than 180,000 young adults indicated that alcohol abstinence increased between 2002 and 2018. Young adults report various reasons for not drinking, ranging from lack of interest to financial and situational barriers (eg, not wanting to interfere with school or work).

“The tide is coming in and out at the same time,” he said. “Younger people under the age of 25 are drinking less each year, are increasingly interested in things like Dry January, and more than half view moderate levels of consumption as unhealthy. People who are 26 years and older are drinking more, are not as interested in cutting back or taking breaks, and are less likely to consider 1 or 2 drinks per day as potentially unhealthy.”

Dr. Koob would like to believe the positive trends around alcohol in the under-25 set prove not only resilient, but someday, dominant.

“We have seen historic increases in alcohol consumption in the last few years — the largest increases in more than 50 years. But we are hopeful that, as the younger cohorts age, we will see lower levels of drinking by adults in mid-life and beyond.”
 

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

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a significant global health concern, accounting for approximately 5% of all disease and injury. In the United States, the prevalence of ALD has increased since 2014, and the trajectory accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ALD encompasses a spectrum of diseases that includes steatosis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as related complications. Although earlier stages of ALD may be asymptomatic, hepatologists and gastroenterologists rarely see patients at this point.

“Unfortunately, patients with ALD more often present in late stages of disease (decompensated cirrhosis) as compared with other chronic liver diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease or hepatitis C,” Doug A. Simonetto, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Fellowship Program at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told this news organization.

Recent data have identified three demographic groups experiencing higher rates of ALD relative to previous periods and who may therefore require special attention. Understanding what makes these groups increasingly susceptible to ALD may allow for improved screening, earlier diagnosis, and potentially the prevention of its most dire consequences.
 

As Women Consume More Alcohol, ALD Follows

Historically, men have had higher rates of alcohol use, heavy drinking, and alcohol disorders than women. But this gender gap has begun to narrow.

Men born in the early 1900s were 2.2 times more likely to drink alcohol and 3.6 times more likely to experience alcohol-related harms than women, according to a 2016 meta-analysis. By the end of the 1990s, however, women’s drinking had begun to catch up. Men still led in these categories, but only by 1.1 and 1.3 times, respectively.

Rates of binge drinking (defined as at least five drinks in men or at least four drinks in women in an approximately 2-hour period) are also converging between the sexes. The authors of a longitudinal analysis hypothesized that an uptick in young women reporting drinking for social reasons — from 53% in 1987 to 87% in 2020 — was a possible cause.

Greater alcohol consumption among women has translated into higher rates of ALD. Analyzing data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, which looked at hundreds of diseases across 204 countries and territories, researchers reported that the worldwide prevalence of ALD among young women (15-49 years) rose within the past decade. Those in the 20- to 24-year-old age group had the most significant increases in ALD prevalence rates.

Recent US statistics highlight the relative imbalance in ALD’s impact on women, according to George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

“The age-adjusted death rate from alcohol-associated liver cirrhosis increased by 47% between 2000 and 2019, with larger increases for females than for males (83.5% compared to 33%),” Dr. Koob told this news organization. “Larger increases for women are consistent with a general increase in alcohol use among adult women and larger increases in alcohol-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

Physiologically, women have a higher risk than men of developing ALD and more severe disease, even at lower levels of alcohol exposure. According to a 2021 review, several proposed mechanisms might play a role, including differences in alcohol metabolism and first-pass metabolism, hormones, and endotoxin and Kupffer cell activation.

Crucially, women are less likely than men to receive in-person therapy or approved medications for alcohol use disorder, according to a 2019 analysis of over 66,000 privately insured adult patients.
 

Certain Ethnic, Racial Minorities Have Higher Rates of ALD

In the United States, rates of ALD and associated complications are higher among certain minority groups, most prominently Hispanic and Native American individuals.

A 2021 analysis of three large US databases found that Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a 17% increased risk for acute-on-chronic liver failure in patients with ALD-related admissions.

Data also show that Hispanic and White patients have a higher proportion of alcoholic hepatitis than African American patients. And for Hispanic patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis, they incur significantly more total hospital costs despite having similar mortality rates as White patients.

ALD-related mortality appears higher within certain subgroups of Hispanic patient populations. NIAAA surveillance reports track deaths resulting from cirrhosis in the White, Black, and Hispanic populations. From 2000 to 2019, these statistics show that although death rates from cirrhosis decreased for Hispanic White men, they increased for Hispanic White women, Dr. Koob said.

The latest data show that Native American populations are experiencing ALD at relatively higher rates than other racial/ethnic groups as well. An analysis of nearly 200,000 cirrhosis-related hospitalizations found that ALD, including alcoholic hepatitis, was the most common etiology in American Indian/Alaska Native patients. A separate analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database revealed that discharges resulting from ALD were disproportionately higher among Native American women.

As with Hispanic populations, ALD-associated mortality rates are also higher in Native American populations. The death rate from ALD increased for all racial and ethnic groups by 23.4% from 2019 to 2020, but the biggest increase occurred in the American Indian or Alaska Native populations (34.3% increase, from 20.1 to 27 per 100,000 people). Additionally, over the first two decades of the 21st century, mortality rates resulting from cirrhosis were highest among the American Indian and Alaska Native populations, according to a recently published systematic analysis of US health disparities across five racial/ethnic groups.

Discrepancies in these and other minority groups may be due partly to genetic mechanisms, such as the relatively higher frequency of the PNPLA3 G/G polymorphism, a known risk factor for the development of advanced ALD, among those with Native American ancestry. A host of complex socioeconomic factors, such as income discrepancies and access to care, likely contribute too.

Evidence suggests that alcohol screening interventions are not applied equally across various racial and ethnic groups, Dr. Koob noted.

“For instance, Subbaraman and colleagues reported that, compared to non-Hispanic White patients, those who identify as Hispanic, Black, or other race or ethnicity were less likely to be screened for alcohol use during visits to healthcare providers. This was particularly true for those with a high school education or less,” he told this news organization. “However, other studies have not found such disparities.”
 

ALD Rates High in Young Adults, but the Tide May Be Changing

Globally, the prevalence of ALD has increased among both adolescents and young adults since the beginning of the 21st century. The global incidence of alcohol-associated hepatitis in recent years has been greatest among those aged 15-44 years.

In the United States, the increasing rate of ALD-related hospitalizations is primarily driven by the rise in cases of alcoholic hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure among those aged 35 years and younger.

ALD is now the most common indication for liver transplant in those younger than 40 years of age, having increased fourfold between 2003 and 2018.

From 2009 to 2016, people aged 25-34 years experienced the highest average annual increase in cirrhosis-related mortality (10.5%), a trend the authors noted was “driven entirely by alcohol-related liver disease.”

Younger adults may be more susceptible to ALD due to the way they drink.

In a 2021 analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database, the weighted prevalence of harmful alcohol use was 29.3% in those younger than 35 years, compared with 16.9% in those aged 35-64 years. Higher blood alcohol levels resulting from binge drinking may make patients more susceptible to bacterial translocation and liver fibrosis and can increase the likelihood of cirrhosis in those with an underlying metabolic syndrome.

Yet, Dr. Koob said, thinking of “young adults” as one cohort may be misguided because he’s found very different attitudes toward alcohol within that population. Cross-sectional survey data obtained from more than 180,000 young adults indicated that alcohol abstinence increased between 2002 and 2018. Young adults report various reasons for not drinking, ranging from lack of interest to financial and situational barriers (eg, not wanting to interfere with school or work).

“The tide is coming in and out at the same time,” he said. “Younger people under the age of 25 are drinking less each year, are increasingly interested in things like Dry January, and more than half view moderate levels of consumption as unhealthy. People who are 26 years and older are drinking more, are not as interested in cutting back or taking breaks, and are less likely to consider 1 or 2 drinks per day as potentially unhealthy.”

Dr. Koob would like to believe the positive trends around alcohol in the under-25 set prove not only resilient, but someday, dominant.

“We have seen historic increases in alcohol consumption in the last few years — the largest increases in more than 50 years. But we are hopeful that, as the younger cohorts age, we will see lower levels of drinking by adults in mid-life and beyond.”
 

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

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a significant global health concern, accounting for approximately 5% of all disease and injury. In the United States, the prevalence of ALD has increased since 2014, and the trajectory accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ALD encompasses a spectrum of diseases that includes steatosis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as related complications. Although earlier stages of ALD may be asymptomatic, hepatologists and gastroenterologists rarely see patients at this point.

“Unfortunately, patients with ALD more often present in late stages of disease (decompensated cirrhosis) as compared with other chronic liver diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease or hepatitis C,” Doug A. Simonetto, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Fellowship Program at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told this news organization.

Recent data have identified three demographic groups experiencing higher rates of ALD relative to previous periods and who may therefore require special attention. Understanding what makes these groups increasingly susceptible to ALD may allow for improved screening, earlier diagnosis, and potentially the prevention of its most dire consequences.
 

As Women Consume More Alcohol, ALD Follows

Historically, men have had higher rates of alcohol use, heavy drinking, and alcohol disorders than women. But this gender gap has begun to narrow.

Men born in the early 1900s were 2.2 times more likely to drink alcohol and 3.6 times more likely to experience alcohol-related harms than women, according to a 2016 meta-analysis. By the end of the 1990s, however, women’s drinking had begun to catch up. Men still led in these categories, but only by 1.1 and 1.3 times, respectively.

Rates of binge drinking (defined as at least five drinks in men or at least four drinks in women in an approximately 2-hour period) are also converging between the sexes. The authors of a longitudinal analysis hypothesized that an uptick in young women reporting drinking for social reasons — from 53% in 1987 to 87% in 2020 — was a possible cause.

Greater alcohol consumption among women has translated into higher rates of ALD. Analyzing data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, which looked at hundreds of diseases across 204 countries and territories, researchers reported that the worldwide prevalence of ALD among young women (15-49 years) rose within the past decade. Those in the 20- to 24-year-old age group had the most significant increases in ALD prevalence rates.

Recent US statistics highlight the relative imbalance in ALD’s impact on women, according to George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

“The age-adjusted death rate from alcohol-associated liver cirrhosis increased by 47% between 2000 and 2019, with larger increases for females than for males (83.5% compared to 33%),” Dr. Koob told this news organization. “Larger increases for women are consistent with a general increase in alcohol use among adult women and larger increases in alcohol-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

Physiologically, women have a higher risk than men of developing ALD and more severe disease, even at lower levels of alcohol exposure. According to a 2021 review, several proposed mechanisms might play a role, including differences in alcohol metabolism and first-pass metabolism, hormones, and endotoxin and Kupffer cell activation.

Crucially, women are less likely than men to receive in-person therapy or approved medications for alcohol use disorder, according to a 2019 analysis of over 66,000 privately insured adult patients.
 

Certain Ethnic, Racial Minorities Have Higher Rates of ALD

In the United States, rates of ALD and associated complications are higher among certain minority groups, most prominently Hispanic and Native American individuals.

A 2021 analysis of three large US databases found that Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a 17% increased risk for acute-on-chronic liver failure in patients with ALD-related admissions.

Data also show that Hispanic and White patients have a higher proportion of alcoholic hepatitis than African American patients. And for Hispanic patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis, they incur significantly more total hospital costs despite having similar mortality rates as White patients.

ALD-related mortality appears higher within certain subgroups of Hispanic patient populations. NIAAA surveillance reports track deaths resulting from cirrhosis in the White, Black, and Hispanic populations. From 2000 to 2019, these statistics show that although death rates from cirrhosis decreased for Hispanic White men, they increased for Hispanic White women, Dr. Koob said.

The latest data show that Native American populations are experiencing ALD at relatively higher rates than other racial/ethnic groups as well. An analysis of nearly 200,000 cirrhosis-related hospitalizations found that ALD, including alcoholic hepatitis, was the most common etiology in American Indian/Alaska Native patients. A separate analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database revealed that discharges resulting from ALD were disproportionately higher among Native American women.

As with Hispanic populations, ALD-associated mortality rates are also higher in Native American populations. The death rate from ALD increased for all racial and ethnic groups by 23.4% from 2019 to 2020, but the biggest increase occurred in the American Indian or Alaska Native populations (34.3% increase, from 20.1 to 27 per 100,000 people). Additionally, over the first two decades of the 21st century, mortality rates resulting from cirrhosis were highest among the American Indian and Alaska Native populations, according to a recently published systematic analysis of US health disparities across five racial/ethnic groups.

Discrepancies in these and other minority groups may be due partly to genetic mechanisms, such as the relatively higher frequency of the PNPLA3 G/G polymorphism, a known risk factor for the development of advanced ALD, among those with Native American ancestry. A host of complex socioeconomic factors, such as income discrepancies and access to care, likely contribute too.

Evidence suggests that alcohol screening interventions are not applied equally across various racial and ethnic groups, Dr. Koob noted.

“For instance, Subbaraman and colleagues reported that, compared to non-Hispanic White patients, those who identify as Hispanic, Black, or other race or ethnicity were less likely to be screened for alcohol use during visits to healthcare providers. This was particularly true for those with a high school education or less,” he told this news organization. “However, other studies have not found such disparities.”
 

ALD Rates High in Young Adults, but the Tide May Be Changing

Globally, the prevalence of ALD has increased among both adolescents and young adults since the beginning of the 21st century. The global incidence of alcohol-associated hepatitis in recent years has been greatest among those aged 15-44 years.

In the United States, the increasing rate of ALD-related hospitalizations is primarily driven by the rise in cases of alcoholic hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure among those aged 35 years and younger.

ALD is now the most common indication for liver transplant in those younger than 40 years of age, having increased fourfold between 2003 and 2018.

From 2009 to 2016, people aged 25-34 years experienced the highest average annual increase in cirrhosis-related mortality (10.5%), a trend the authors noted was “driven entirely by alcohol-related liver disease.”

Younger adults may be more susceptible to ALD due to the way they drink.

In a 2021 analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database, the weighted prevalence of harmful alcohol use was 29.3% in those younger than 35 years, compared with 16.9% in those aged 35-64 years. Higher blood alcohol levels resulting from binge drinking may make patients more susceptible to bacterial translocation and liver fibrosis and can increase the likelihood of cirrhosis in those with an underlying metabolic syndrome.

Yet, Dr. Koob said, thinking of “young adults” as one cohort may be misguided because he’s found very different attitudes toward alcohol within that population. Cross-sectional survey data obtained from more than 180,000 young adults indicated that alcohol abstinence increased between 2002 and 2018. Young adults report various reasons for not drinking, ranging from lack of interest to financial and situational barriers (eg, not wanting to interfere with school or work).

“The tide is coming in and out at the same time,” he said. “Younger people under the age of 25 are drinking less each year, are increasingly interested in things like Dry January, and more than half view moderate levels of consumption as unhealthy. People who are 26 years and older are drinking more, are not as interested in cutting back or taking breaks, and are less likely to consider 1 or 2 drinks per day as potentially unhealthy.”

Dr. Koob would like to believe the positive trends around alcohol in the under-25 set prove not only resilient, but someday, dominant.

“We have seen historic increases in alcohol consumption in the last few years — the largest increases in more than 50 years. But we are hopeful that, as the younger cohorts age, we will see lower levels of drinking by adults in mid-life and beyond.”
 

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

A few years after moving with her family from Iraq to the United States, Areej El-Jawahri, MD, entered the University of Michigan with plans to study law. Then her close friend was diagnosed with terminal cancer. This friend’s wrenching experiences during her final days convinced Dr. El-Jawahri to follow a new career path, one devoted to healing. Today, she practices hematology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is a leading advocate for palliative care in oncology.

In an interview, Dr. El-Jawahri spoke about her journey from Baghdad to Boston and the future of palliative medicine in hematology.

Question: Where did you grow up?

Dr. El-Jawahri: My family is from Baghdad, Iraq, and I was born there. We moved to the States when I was 14. I came to Michigan not speaking a word of English. My parents — my father is a mechanical engineer, and my mom is a computer engineer — chose to live in a very white neighborhood in Farmington Hills, in the suburbs of Detroit. The neighborhood did not have any immigrants or Arab Americans. There are a lot of Arab Americans in Michigan, but they chose for me not to hang out with them early on so that I could learn the language. It was a really good choice.

Question: What happened to your college friend?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She had a brain tumor and ended up receiving intensive care at the end of life. We had a lot of conversations about her wishes and desires, but none of those were honored. Her ending was not something that she wanted, nor did it honor her memory.

Question: What do you think went wrong?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She was getting treatment for her family’s sake. The idea of losing her was too hard for them. I remember vividly the conversations where she would say, “I just hope I don’t end up in the hospital at the end of life.” We had that conversation explicitly. But because we were young, her family was very involved in her care. A lot of the decision-making was very complicated.

Question: How did this experience change your career path?

Dr. El-Jawahri: I went into medicine specifically to become an oncologist and cure cancer. The naive 20-year-old in me said, “Nobody should die this miserable death. I’m going to go in, and I’m going to cure it.”

Question: How did palliative medicine become your major focus?

Dr. El-Jawahri: During my first year at Harvard Medical School, I took a course that’s called “Living With Life-Threatening Illness.” It allows medical students to spend their entire first year getting to know a patient living with a serious illness. We’d spend weekly coffee or lunch breaks with them, where we’d hear about their experiences. After every weekly meeting with a patient, we also had a group meeting with several students and group facilitators to talk about — and process — the interactions we had with patients. I was assigned a woman who was living with metastatic breast cancer. I was also introduced to the field of palliative care and how it helps patients manage complex symptoms and process and cope with a difficult diagnosis. It also cultivates the understanding to make informed decisions about their care. That’s when I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life — figure out ways to integrate these palliative and supportive care concepts and improve the lived experience of patients and families within the oncology setting.

Question: What happened next?

Dr. El-Jawahri: When I was a first-year intern, I went to residency at Massachusetts General Hospital. I was on an oncology service and admitted a young college student who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. She was an athlete, and every time she went up the stairs to her dorm, she was getting very short of breath. She went to a walk-in clinic because when you’re 20 and you’re healthy, you don’t think you need anything. They did some blood work, and 2 hours later, they called her and said, “You probably have leukemia. You need to go to the emergency department immediately.” There she saw an emergency doctor who said, “You will be admitted to the hospital. You have leukemia. I’m calling an oncologist, and you’ll probably have to start chemotherapy within the next day or two.”

Question: What was that experience like for the patient?

Dr. El-Jawahri: I’ve never seen someone so scared. The first question she asked me was about her family, who were from North Carolina. She said, “It feels like everybody thinks that I’m dying. Do you think my family will have time to get here?” They were in a car driving over. This is not a unique story in this population. Unfortunately, these patients experience the most traumatic way of being diagnosed and probably the most traumatic experience in oncology. They’re being abducted into a hospital environment, losing all control and starting immediate therapy. Then, for the first 4-6 weeks, they experience immense toxicity, side effects like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and mucositis, where they have painful mouth and throat sores that require intravenous pain medications. This causes real posttraumatic stress. After seeing that woman, I made the decision to work in leukemia and transplants to try to make things a little bit better for these patients.

Question: How did the patient fare?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She actually did great and was cured of her disease. Many of our patients with leukemia, especially younger ones, do well in terms of survival. But they struggle with the trauma of their diagnosis and the distress of the acute treatment period. Even in the curative setting, helping patients to cope with a traumatic diagnosis can have a big impact on their quality of life, how they feel, and their long-term outcomes in terms of psychological stress, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress. But so often, our patients with leukemia are not offered palliative care and supportive care because they’re going to be cured.

Question: What is an important lesson from your research into palliative care in hematology?

Dr. El-Jawahri: We can make things better for patients and families by integrating palliative care clinicians into the care of patients. Patients receiving palliative care are more likely to document their end-of-life preferences and discuss them with their clinicians, and they’re less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life. When you ask patients with cancer where do they want to die, many of patients say, “I want to die at home. I don’t want to be in a hospital.” A lot of the work I’m doing now is focused on creating digital apps with components of palliative care and supportive care interventions. Patients can administer these interventions to themselves and learn how to effectively cope and deal with their illness. Some patients may do well with a digital app, but others may actually need the in-person touch. Some may need a hybrid approach. One of the other future directions for us is thinking about how we optimize supportive care interventions. Which ones do we give to which patient?

Question: Considering all that you’ve learned since college, how do you think your sick friend should have been treated?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She was neither introduced to the term palliative care nor to palliative care specialists. Now the standard of care — especially in patients with advanced cancer — is to integrate palliative care clinicians early in the course of illness. We would have loved for her to have a palliative care clinician who didn’t replace the oncologist but rather helped the patient, family, and oncologist communicate more effectively with one another. We hear all the time from patients who say different things to their oncologist than to their palliative care clinician. It’s not like my friend wasn’t able to communicate with her oncologist. But maybe part of it was that she wanted to not disappoint her oncologist [by ending treatment].

Question: Could you tell me about the research you presented at ASCO 2024 regarding 115 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome who were receiving non-intensive chemotherapy?

Dr. El-Jawahri: These patients receive therapy that requires frequent clinic visits and often substantially impairs their quality of life. We know this population often does not engage in any timely discussion with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences. This multisite randomized clinical trial assigned patients to receive usual oncology care [with palliative care consultations only upon request] vs to see palliative care clinicians monthly in the outpatient setting and twice weekly every time they were hospitalized. The intervention focused on how to help patients manage their symptoms and end-of-life communication in particular. The primary outcome of the study was time from the documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death.

Question: What did you learn?

Dr. El-Jawahri: This is one of the first studies to highlight the impact of palliative care integration on end-of-life care preferences and discussions and documentation in this population. Patients receiving the palliative care intervention were much more likely to discuss their end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs 68.4%; P < .001). More importantly, those receiving the intervention had a much longer time from documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death. On average, patients in the palliative care intervention group vs the usual care group had a mean of 41 vs 1.5 days from documentation of their preferences to death (P < .001). In the intervention group, these conversations were happening early enough for patients to plan, talk to their families, and discuss their wishes. In the usual care group, they were happening acutely while these patients were dying. We also learned that patients receiving palliative care intervention were less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life (70.6% vs 91.9%; P = .031) and had better quality of life (138.6 vs 125.5; P = .010).

Question: What’s next for your research in this area?

Dr. El-Jawahri: We are doing a large-scale randomized, comparative effectiveness trial of specialty palliative care vs primary palliative care in 11,150 patients with acute myeloid leukemia across 20 institutions in the United States. We expect results in 2028.

Question: What are you hoping to understand?

Dr. El-Jawahri: We will never have enough specialty palliative care clinicians to take care of all patients with serious illness. As a result, we have to learn how palliative care works: How does it improve outcomes? How do we potentially take what palliative care clinicians do and try to integrate it into regular oncology practice? A lot of the work that I’m excited about now regards what we call primary palliative care. How do we train oncology clinicians to incorporate palliative care skills in their practices so we’re able to better meet the needs of our patients and their families? What we’d love to understand from future research is which patient populations need specialty palliative care and which patients can do just fine with an oncology clinician who has a lot of good palliative care skills integrated into their practice.

Dr. El-Jawahri disclosed consulting for Incyte and Novartis.

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

A few years after moving with her family from Iraq to the United States, Areej El-Jawahri, MD, entered the University of Michigan with plans to study law. Then her close friend was diagnosed with terminal cancer. This friend’s wrenching experiences during her final days convinced Dr. El-Jawahri to follow a new career path, one devoted to healing. Today, she practices hematology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is a leading advocate for palliative care in oncology.

In an interview, Dr. El-Jawahri spoke about her journey from Baghdad to Boston and the future of palliative medicine in hematology.

Question: Where did you grow up?

Dr. El-Jawahri: My family is from Baghdad, Iraq, and I was born there. We moved to the States when I was 14. I came to Michigan not speaking a word of English. My parents — my father is a mechanical engineer, and my mom is a computer engineer — chose to live in a very white neighborhood in Farmington Hills, in the suburbs of Detroit. The neighborhood did not have any immigrants or Arab Americans. There are a lot of Arab Americans in Michigan, but they chose for me not to hang out with them early on so that I could learn the language. It was a really good choice.

Question: What happened to your college friend?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She had a brain tumor and ended up receiving intensive care at the end of life. We had a lot of conversations about her wishes and desires, but none of those were honored. Her ending was not something that she wanted, nor did it honor her memory.

Question: What do you think went wrong?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She was getting treatment for her family’s sake. The idea of losing her was too hard for them. I remember vividly the conversations where she would say, “I just hope I don’t end up in the hospital at the end of life.” We had that conversation explicitly. But because we were young, her family was very involved in her care. A lot of the decision-making was very complicated.

Question: How did this experience change your career path?

Dr. El-Jawahri: I went into medicine specifically to become an oncologist and cure cancer. The naive 20-year-old in me said, “Nobody should die this miserable death. I’m going to go in, and I’m going to cure it.”

Question: How did palliative medicine become your major focus?

Dr. El-Jawahri: During my first year at Harvard Medical School, I took a course that’s called “Living With Life-Threatening Illness.” It allows medical students to spend their entire first year getting to know a patient living with a serious illness. We’d spend weekly coffee or lunch breaks with them, where we’d hear about their experiences. After every weekly meeting with a patient, we also had a group meeting with several students and group facilitators to talk about — and process — the interactions we had with patients. I was assigned a woman who was living with metastatic breast cancer. I was also introduced to the field of palliative care and how it helps patients manage complex symptoms and process and cope with a difficult diagnosis. It also cultivates the understanding to make informed decisions about their care. That’s when I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life — figure out ways to integrate these palliative and supportive care concepts and improve the lived experience of patients and families within the oncology setting.

Question: What happened next?

Dr. El-Jawahri: When I was a first-year intern, I went to residency at Massachusetts General Hospital. I was on an oncology service and admitted a young college student who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. She was an athlete, and every time she went up the stairs to her dorm, she was getting very short of breath. She went to a walk-in clinic because when you’re 20 and you’re healthy, you don’t think you need anything. They did some blood work, and 2 hours later, they called her and said, “You probably have leukemia. You need to go to the emergency department immediately.” There she saw an emergency doctor who said, “You will be admitted to the hospital. You have leukemia. I’m calling an oncologist, and you’ll probably have to start chemotherapy within the next day or two.”

Question: What was that experience like for the patient?

Dr. El-Jawahri: I’ve never seen someone so scared. The first question she asked me was about her family, who were from North Carolina. She said, “It feels like everybody thinks that I’m dying. Do you think my family will have time to get here?” They were in a car driving over. This is not a unique story in this population. Unfortunately, these patients experience the most traumatic way of being diagnosed and probably the most traumatic experience in oncology. They’re being abducted into a hospital environment, losing all control and starting immediate therapy. Then, for the first 4-6 weeks, they experience immense toxicity, side effects like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and mucositis, where they have painful mouth and throat sores that require intravenous pain medications. This causes real posttraumatic stress. After seeing that woman, I made the decision to work in leukemia and transplants to try to make things a little bit better for these patients.

Question: How did the patient fare?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She actually did great and was cured of her disease. Many of our patients with leukemia, especially younger ones, do well in terms of survival. But they struggle with the trauma of their diagnosis and the distress of the acute treatment period. Even in the curative setting, helping patients to cope with a traumatic diagnosis can have a big impact on their quality of life, how they feel, and their long-term outcomes in terms of psychological stress, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress. But so often, our patients with leukemia are not offered palliative care and supportive care because they’re going to be cured.

Question: What is an important lesson from your research into palliative care in hematology?

Dr. El-Jawahri: We can make things better for patients and families by integrating palliative care clinicians into the care of patients. Patients receiving palliative care are more likely to document their end-of-life preferences and discuss them with their clinicians, and they’re less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life. When you ask patients with cancer where do they want to die, many of patients say, “I want to die at home. I don’t want to be in a hospital.” A lot of the work I’m doing now is focused on creating digital apps with components of palliative care and supportive care interventions. Patients can administer these interventions to themselves and learn how to effectively cope and deal with their illness. Some patients may do well with a digital app, but others may actually need the in-person touch. Some may need a hybrid approach. One of the other future directions for us is thinking about how we optimize supportive care interventions. Which ones do we give to which patient?

Question: Considering all that you’ve learned since college, how do you think your sick friend should have been treated?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She was neither introduced to the term palliative care nor to palliative care specialists. Now the standard of care — especially in patients with advanced cancer — is to integrate palliative care clinicians early in the course of illness. We would have loved for her to have a palliative care clinician who didn’t replace the oncologist but rather helped the patient, family, and oncologist communicate more effectively with one another. We hear all the time from patients who say different things to their oncologist than to their palliative care clinician. It’s not like my friend wasn’t able to communicate with her oncologist. But maybe part of it was that she wanted to not disappoint her oncologist [by ending treatment].

Question: Could you tell me about the research you presented at ASCO 2024 regarding 115 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome who were receiving non-intensive chemotherapy?

Dr. El-Jawahri: These patients receive therapy that requires frequent clinic visits and often substantially impairs their quality of life. We know this population often does not engage in any timely discussion with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences. This multisite randomized clinical trial assigned patients to receive usual oncology care [with palliative care consultations only upon request] vs to see palliative care clinicians monthly in the outpatient setting and twice weekly every time they were hospitalized. The intervention focused on how to help patients manage their symptoms and end-of-life communication in particular. The primary outcome of the study was time from the documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death.

Question: What did you learn?

Dr. El-Jawahri: This is one of the first studies to highlight the impact of palliative care integration on end-of-life care preferences and discussions and documentation in this population. Patients receiving the palliative care intervention were much more likely to discuss their end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs 68.4%; P < .001). More importantly, those receiving the intervention had a much longer time from documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death. On average, patients in the palliative care intervention group vs the usual care group had a mean of 41 vs 1.5 days from documentation of their preferences to death (P < .001). In the intervention group, these conversations were happening early enough for patients to plan, talk to their families, and discuss their wishes. In the usual care group, they were happening acutely while these patients were dying. We also learned that patients receiving palliative care intervention were less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life (70.6% vs 91.9%; P = .031) and had better quality of life (138.6 vs 125.5; P = .010).

Question: What’s next for your research in this area?

Dr. El-Jawahri: We are doing a large-scale randomized, comparative effectiveness trial of specialty palliative care vs primary palliative care in 11,150 patients with acute myeloid leukemia across 20 institutions in the United States. We expect results in 2028.

Question: What are you hoping to understand?

Dr. El-Jawahri: We will never have enough specialty palliative care clinicians to take care of all patients with serious illness. As a result, we have to learn how palliative care works: How does it improve outcomes? How do we potentially take what palliative care clinicians do and try to integrate it into regular oncology practice? A lot of the work that I’m excited about now regards what we call primary palliative care. How do we train oncology clinicians to incorporate palliative care skills in their practices so we’re able to better meet the needs of our patients and their families? What we’d love to understand from future research is which patient populations need specialty palliative care and which patients can do just fine with an oncology clinician who has a lot of good palliative care skills integrated into their practice.

Dr. El-Jawahri disclosed consulting for Incyte and Novartis.

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

A few years after moving with her family from Iraq to the United States, Areej El-Jawahri, MD, entered the University of Michigan with plans to study law. Then her close friend was diagnosed with terminal cancer. This friend’s wrenching experiences during her final days convinced Dr. El-Jawahri to follow a new career path, one devoted to healing. Today, she practices hematology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is a leading advocate for palliative care in oncology.

In an interview, Dr. El-Jawahri spoke about her journey from Baghdad to Boston and the future of palliative medicine in hematology.

Question: Where did you grow up?

Dr. El-Jawahri: My family is from Baghdad, Iraq, and I was born there. We moved to the States when I was 14. I came to Michigan not speaking a word of English. My parents — my father is a mechanical engineer, and my mom is a computer engineer — chose to live in a very white neighborhood in Farmington Hills, in the suburbs of Detroit. The neighborhood did not have any immigrants or Arab Americans. There are a lot of Arab Americans in Michigan, but they chose for me not to hang out with them early on so that I could learn the language. It was a really good choice.

Question: What happened to your college friend?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She had a brain tumor and ended up receiving intensive care at the end of life. We had a lot of conversations about her wishes and desires, but none of those were honored. Her ending was not something that she wanted, nor did it honor her memory.

Question: What do you think went wrong?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She was getting treatment for her family’s sake. The idea of losing her was too hard for them. I remember vividly the conversations where she would say, “I just hope I don’t end up in the hospital at the end of life.” We had that conversation explicitly. But because we were young, her family was very involved in her care. A lot of the decision-making was very complicated.

Question: How did this experience change your career path?

Dr. El-Jawahri: I went into medicine specifically to become an oncologist and cure cancer. The naive 20-year-old in me said, “Nobody should die this miserable death. I’m going to go in, and I’m going to cure it.”

Question: How did palliative medicine become your major focus?

Dr. El-Jawahri: During my first year at Harvard Medical School, I took a course that’s called “Living With Life-Threatening Illness.” It allows medical students to spend their entire first year getting to know a patient living with a serious illness. We’d spend weekly coffee or lunch breaks with them, where we’d hear about their experiences. After every weekly meeting with a patient, we also had a group meeting with several students and group facilitators to talk about — and process — the interactions we had with patients. I was assigned a woman who was living with metastatic breast cancer. I was also introduced to the field of palliative care and how it helps patients manage complex symptoms and process and cope with a difficult diagnosis. It also cultivates the understanding to make informed decisions about their care. That’s when I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life — figure out ways to integrate these palliative and supportive care concepts and improve the lived experience of patients and families within the oncology setting.

Question: What happened next?

Dr. El-Jawahri: When I was a first-year intern, I went to residency at Massachusetts General Hospital. I was on an oncology service and admitted a young college student who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. She was an athlete, and every time she went up the stairs to her dorm, she was getting very short of breath. She went to a walk-in clinic because when you’re 20 and you’re healthy, you don’t think you need anything. They did some blood work, and 2 hours later, they called her and said, “You probably have leukemia. You need to go to the emergency department immediately.” There she saw an emergency doctor who said, “You will be admitted to the hospital. You have leukemia. I’m calling an oncologist, and you’ll probably have to start chemotherapy within the next day or two.”

Question: What was that experience like for the patient?

Dr. El-Jawahri: I’ve never seen someone so scared. The first question she asked me was about her family, who were from North Carolina. She said, “It feels like everybody thinks that I’m dying. Do you think my family will have time to get here?” They were in a car driving over. This is not a unique story in this population. Unfortunately, these patients experience the most traumatic way of being diagnosed and probably the most traumatic experience in oncology. They’re being abducted into a hospital environment, losing all control and starting immediate therapy. Then, for the first 4-6 weeks, they experience immense toxicity, side effects like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and mucositis, where they have painful mouth and throat sores that require intravenous pain medications. This causes real posttraumatic stress. After seeing that woman, I made the decision to work in leukemia and transplants to try to make things a little bit better for these patients.

Question: How did the patient fare?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She actually did great and was cured of her disease. Many of our patients with leukemia, especially younger ones, do well in terms of survival. But they struggle with the trauma of their diagnosis and the distress of the acute treatment period. Even in the curative setting, helping patients to cope with a traumatic diagnosis can have a big impact on their quality of life, how they feel, and their long-term outcomes in terms of psychological stress, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress. But so often, our patients with leukemia are not offered palliative care and supportive care because they’re going to be cured.

Question: What is an important lesson from your research into palliative care in hematology?

Dr. El-Jawahri: We can make things better for patients and families by integrating palliative care clinicians into the care of patients. Patients receiving palliative care are more likely to document their end-of-life preferences and discuss them with their clinicians, and they’re less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life. When you ask patients with cancer where do they want to die, many of patients say, “I want to die at home. I don’t want to be in a hospital.” A lot of the work I’m doing now is focused on creating digital apps with components of palliative care and supportive care interventions. Patients can administer these interventions to themselves and learn how to effectively cope and deal with their illness. Some patients may do well with a digital app, but others may actually need the in-person touch. Some may need a hybrid approach. One of the other future directions for us is thinking about how we optimize supportive care interventions. Which ones do we give to which patient?

Question: Considering all that you’ve learned since college, how do you think your sick friend should have been treated?

Dr. El-Jawahri: She was neither introduced to the term palliative care nor to palliative care specialists. Now the standard of care — especially in patients with advanced cancer — is to integrate palliative care clinicians early in the course of illness. We would have loved for her to have a palliative care clinician who didn’t replace the oncologist but rather helped the patient, family, and oncologist communicate more effectively with one another. We hear all the time from patients who say different things to their oncologist than to their palliative care clinician. It’s not like my friend wasn’t able to communicate with her oncologist. But maybe part of it was that she wanted to not disappoint her oncologist [by ending treatment].

Question: Could you tell me about the research you presented at ASCO 2024 regarding 115 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome who were receiving non-intensive chemotherapy?

Dr. El-Jawahri: These patients receive therapy that requires frequent clinic visits and often substantially impairs their quality of life. We know this population often does not engage in any timely discussion with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences. This multisite randomized clinical trial assigned patients to receive usual oncology care [with palliative care consultations only upon request] vs to see palliative care clinicians monthly in the outpatient setting and twice weekly every time they were hospitalized. The intervention focused on how to help patients manage their symptoms and end-of-life communication in particular. The primary outcome of the study was time from the documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death.

Question: What did you learn?

Dr. El-Jawahri: This is one of the first studies to highlight the impact of palliative care integration on end-of-life care preferences and discussions and documentation in this population. Patients receiving the palliative care intervention were much more likely to discuss their end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs 68.4%; P < .001). More importantly, those receiving the intervention had a much longer time from documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death. On average, patients in the palliative care intervention group vs the usual care group had a mean of 41 vs 1.5 days from documentation of their preferences to death (P < .001). In the intervention group, these conversations were happening early enough for patients to plan, talk to their families, and discuss their wishes. In the usual care group, they were happening acutely while these patients were dying. We also learned that patients receiving palliative care intervention were less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life (70.6% vs 91.9%; P = .031) and had better quality of life (138.6 vs 125.5; P = .010).

Question: What’s next for your research in this area?

Dr. El-Jawahri: We are doing a large-scale randomized, comparative effectiveness trial of specialty palliative care vs primary palliative care in 11,150 patients with acute myeloid leukemia across 20 institutions in the United States. We expect results in 2028.

Question: What are you hoping to understand?

Dr. El-Jawahri: We will never have enough specialty palliative care clinicians to take care of all patients with serious illness. As a result, we have to learn how palliative care works: How does it improve outcomes? How do we potentially take what palliative care clinicians do and try to integrate it into regular oncology practice? A lot of the work that I’m excited about now regards what we call primary palliative care. How do we train oncology clinicians to incorporate palliative care skills in their practices so we’re able to better meet the needs of our patients and their families? What we’d love to understand from future research is which patient populations need specialty palliative care and which patients can do just fine with an oncology clinician who has a lot of good palliative care skills integrated into their practice.

Dr. El-Jawahri disclosed consulting for Incyte and Novartis.

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

We know exercise can be a powerful medical intervention. Now scientists are finally starting to understand why.

A recent study in rats found that exercise positively changes virtually every tissue in the body. The research was part of a large National Institutes of Health initiative called MoTrPAC (Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium) to understand how physical activity improves health and prevents disease. As part of the project, a large human study is also underway.

“What was mind-blowing to me was just how much every organ changed,” said cardiologist Euan A. Ashley, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the study’s lead author. “You really are a different person on exercise.”

The study examined hundreds of previously sedentary rats that exercised on a treadmill for 8 weeks. Their tissues were compared with a control group of rats that stayed sedentary.

Your patients, unlike lab animals, can’t be randomly assigned to run on a treadmill until you switch the machine off.

So how do you persuade your patients to become more active?

We asked seven doctors what works for them. They shared 10 of their most effective persuasion tactics.
 

1. Focus on the First Step

“It’s easy to say you want to change behavior,” said Jordan Metzl, MD, a sports medicine specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City who instructs medical students on how to prescribe exercise. “It’s much more difficult to do it.”

He compares it with moving a tractor tire from point A to point B. The hardest part is lifting the tire off the ground and starting to move it. “Once it’s rolling, it takes much less effort to keep it going in the same direction,” he said.

How much exercise a patient does is irrelevant until they’ve given that tire its first push.

“Any amount of exercise is better than nothing,” Dr. Ashley said. “Let’s just start with that. Making the move from sitting a lot to standing more has genuine health benefits.” 
 

2. Mind Your Language

Many patients have a deep-rooted aversion to words and phrases associated with physical activity.

“Exercise” is one. “Working out” is another.

“I often tell them they just have to start moving,” said Chris Raynor, MD, an orthopedic surgeon based in Ottawa, Ontario. “Don’t think about it as working out. Think about it as just moving. Start with something they already like doing and work from there.”
 

3. Make It Manageable

This also applies to patients who’re injured and either waiting for or recovering from surgery.

“Joints like motion,” said Rachel M. Frank, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine, Denver, Colorado. “The more mobile you can be, the easier your recovery’s going to be.”

That can be a challenge for a patient who wasn’t active before the injury, especially if he or she is fixed on the idea that exercise doesn’t matter unless they do it for 30-45 minutes at a time.

“I try to break it down into manageable bits they can do at home,” Dr. Frank said. “I say, ‘Look, you brush your teeth twice a day, right? Can you do these exercises for 5 or 10 minutes before or after you brush your teeth?’ ”
 

4. Connect Their Interests to Their Activity Level

Chad Waterbury, DPT, thought he knew how to motivate a postsurgical patient to become more active and improve her odds for a full recovery. He told her she’d feel better and have more energy — all the usual selling points.

None of it impressed her.

But one day she mentioned that she’d recently become a grandmother for the first time. Dr. Waterbury, a physical therapist based in Los Angeles, noticed how she lit up when she talked about her new granddaughter.

“So I started giving her scenarios, like taking her daughter to Disneyland when she’s 9 or 10. You have to be somewhat fit to do something like that.”

It worked, and Dr. Waterbury learned a fundamental lesson in motivation. “You have to connect the exercise to something that’s important in their life,” he said.
 

5. Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste

“There are very few things more motivating than having a heart attack,” Dr. Ashley said. “For the vast majority of people, that’s a very sobering moment where they reassess everything in their lives.”

There’ll never be a better time to persuade a patient to become more active. In his cardiology practice, Dr. Ashley has seen a lot of patients make that switch.

“They really do start to prioritize their health in a way they never did before,” he said.
 

6. Emphasize the Practical Over the Ideal

Not all patients attach negative feelings to working out. For some, it’s the goal.

Todd Ivan, MD, calls it the “ ’I need to get to the gym’ lament”: Something they’ve aspired to but rarely if ever done.

“I tell them I’d welcome a half-hour walk every day to get started,” said Dr. Ivan, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Summa Health in Akron, Ohio. “It’s a way to introduce the idea that fitness begins with small adjustments.”
 

7. Go Beneath the Surface

“Exercise doesn’t generally result in great weight loss,” said endocrinologist Karl Nadolsky, DO, an obesity specialist and co-host of the Docs Who Lift podcast.

But a lot of his patients struggle to break that connection. It’s understandable, given how many times they’ve been told they’d weigh less if they moved more.

Dr. Nadolsky tells them it’s what’s on the inside that counts. “I explain it as very literal, meaning their physical health, metabolic health, and mental health.”

By reframing physical activity with an internal rather than external focus — the plumbing and wiring vs the shutters and shingles — he gives them permission to approach exercise as a health upgrade rather than yet another part of their lifelong struggle to lose weight.

“A significant number of our patients respond well to that,” he said.
 

8. Appeal to Their Intellect

Some patients think like doctors: No matter how reluctant they may be to change their mind about something, they’ll respond to evidence.

Dr. Frank has learned to identify these scientifically inclined patients. “I’ll flood them with data,” she said. “I’ll say, ‘These studies show that if you do x, y, z, your outcome will be better.’ ”

Dr. Ashley takes a similar approach when his patients give him the most common reason for not exercising: “I don’t have time.”

He tells them that exercise doesn’t take time. It gives you time.

That’s according to a 2012 study of more than 650,000 adults that associated physical activity with an increased lifespan.

As one of the authors said in an interview, a middle-aged person who gets 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise will, on average, gain 7 more minutes of life for each minute of exercise, compared with someone who doesn’t get any exercise.

The strategy works because it brings patients out of their day-to-day lives and into the future, Dr. Ashley said.

“What about your entire life?” he asks them. “You’re actually in this world for 80-plus years, you hope. How are you going to spend that? You have to think about that when you’re in your 40s and 50s.”
 

9. Show Them the Money

Illness and injury, on top of everything else, can be really expensive.

Even with good insurance, a health problem that requires surgery and/or hospitalization might cost thousands of dollars out of pocket. With mediocre insurance, it might be tens of thousands.

Sometimes, Dr. Frank said, it helps to remind patients of the price they paid for their treatment. “I’ll say, ‘Let’s get moving so you don’t have to pay for this again.’ ”

Protecting their investment can be a powerful motivation.
 

10. Make It a Team Effort

While the doctors we interviewed have a wide range of specialties — cardiology, sports medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, orthopedics, and physical therapy — their patients have one thing in common.

They don’t want to be in a doctor’s office. It means they have something, need something, or broke something.

It might be a treatable condition that’s merely inconvenient or a life-threatening event that’s flat-out terrifying.

Whatever it is, it pulls them out of their normal world. It can be a lonely, disorienting experience.

Sometimes the best thing a doctor can do is stay connected with the patient. “This is like a team sport,” Dr. Frank tells her patients. “I’m going to be your coach, but you’re the captain of the team.”

In some cases, she’ll ask the patient to message her on the portal after completing the daily or weekly exercises. That alone might motivate the patient — especially when she responds to their messages.

After all, nobody wants to let the coach down.
 

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

We know exercise can be a powerful medical intervention. Now scientists are finally starting to understand why.

A recent study in rats found that exercise positively changes virtually every tissue in the body. The research was part of a large National Institutes of Health initiative called MoTrPAC (Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium) to understand how physical activity improves health and prevents disease. As part of the project, a large human study is also underway.

“What was mind-blowing to me was just how much every organ changed,” said cardiologist Euan A. Ashley, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the study’s lead author. “You really are a different person on exercise.”

The study examined hundreds of previously sedentary rats that exercised on a treadmill for 8 weeks. Their tissues were compared with a control group of rats that stayed sedentary.

Your patients, unlike lab animals, can’t be randomly assigned to run on a treadmill until you switch the machine off.

So how do you persuade your patients to become more active?

We asked seven doctors what works for them. They shared 10 of their most effective persuasion tactics.
 

1. Focus on the First Step

“It’s easy to say you want to change behavior,” said Jordan Metzl, MD, a sports medicine specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City who instructs medical students on how to prescribe exercise. “It’s much more difficult to do it.”

He compares it with moving a tractor tire from point A to point B. The hardest part is lifting the tire off the ground and starting to move it. “Once it’s rolling, it takes much less effort to keep it going in the same direction,” he said.

How much exercise a patient does is irrelevant until they’ve given that tire its first push.

“Any amount of exercise is better than nothing,” Dr. Ashley said. “Let’s just start with that. Making the move from sitting a lot to standing more has genuine health benefits.” 
 

2. Mind Your Language

Many patients have a deep-rooted aversion to words and phrases associated with physical activity.

“Exercise” is one. “Working out” is another.

“I often tell them they just have to start moving,” said Chris Raynor, MD, an orthopedic surgeon based in Ottawa, Ontario. “Don’t think about it as working out. Think about it as just moving. Start with something they already like doing and work from there.”
 

3. Make It Manageable

This also applies to patients who’re injured and either waiting for or recovering from surgery.

“Joints like motion,” said Rachel M. Frank, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine, Denver, Colorado. “The more mobile you can be, the easier your recovery’s going to be.”

That can be a challenge for a patient who wasn’t active before the injury, especially if he or she is fixed on the idea that exercise doesn’t matter unless they do it for 30-45 minutes at a time.

“I try to break it down into manageable bits they can do at home,” Dr. Frank said. “I say, ‘Look, you brush your teeth twice a day, right? Can you do these exercises for 5 or 10 minutes before or after you brush your teeth?’ ”
 

4. Connect Their Interests to Their Activity Level

Chad Waterbury, DPT, thought he knew how to motivate a postsurgical patient to become more active and improve her odds for a full recovery. He told her she’d feel better and have more energy — all the usual selling points.

None of it impressed her.

But one day she mentioned that she’d recently become a grandmother for the first time. Dr. Waterbury, a physical therapist based in Los Angeles, noticed how she lit up when she talked about her new granddaughter.

“So I started giving her scenarios, like taking her daughter to Disneyland when she’s 9 or 10. You have to be somewhat fit to do something like that.”

It worked, and Dr. Waterbury learned a fundamental lesson in motivation. “You have to connect the exercise to something that’s important in their life,” he said.
 

5. Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste

“There are very few things more motivating than having a heart attack,” Dr. Ashley said. “For the vast majority of people, that’s a very sobering moment where they reassess everything in their lives.”

There’ll never be a better time to persuade a patient to become more active. In his cardiology practice, Dr. Ashley has seen a lot of patients make that switch.

“They really do start to prioritize their health in a way they never did before,” he said.
 

6. Emphasize the Practical Over the Ideal

Not all patients attach negative feelings to working out. For some, it’s the goal.

Todd Ivan, MD, calls it the “ ’I need to get to the gym’ lament”: Something they’ve aspired to but rarely if ever done.

“I tell them I’d welcome a half-hour walk every day to get started,” said Dr. Ivan, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Summa Health in Akron, Ohio. “It’s a way to introduce the idea that fitness begins with small adjustments.”
 

7. Go Beneath the Surface

“Exercise doesn’t generally result in great weight loss,” said endocrinologist Karl Nadolsky, DO, an obesity specialist and co-host of the Docs Who Lift podcast.

But a lot of his patients struggle to break that connection. It’s understandable, given how many times they’ve been told they’d weigh less if they moved more.

Dr. Nadolsky tells them it’s what’s on the inside that counts. “I explain it as very literal, meaning their physical health, metabolic health, and mental health.”

By reframing physical activity with an internal rather than external focus — the plumbing and wiring vs the shutters and shingles — he gives them permission to approach exercise as a health upgrade rather than yet another part of their lifelong struggle to lose weight.

“A significant number of our patients respond well to that,” he said.
 

8. Appeal to Their Intellect

Some patients think like doctors: No matter how reluctant they may be to change their mind about something, they’ll respond to evidence.

Dr. Frank has learned to identify these scientifically inclined patients. “I’ll flood them with data,” she said. “I’ll say, ‘These studies show that if you do x, y, z, your outcome will be better.’ ”

Dr. Ashley takes a similar approach when his patients give him the most common reason for not exercising: “I don’t have time.”

He tells them that exercise doesn’t take time. It gives you time.

That’s according to a 2012 study of more than 650,000 adults that associated physical activity with an increased lifespan.

As one of the authors said in an interview, a middle-aged person who gets 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise will, on average, gain 7 more minutes of life for each minute of exercise, compared with someone who doesn’t get any exercise.

The strategy works because it brings patients out of their day-to-day lives and into the future, Dr. Ashley said.

“What about your entire life?” he asks them. “You’re actually in this world for 80-plus years, you hope. How are you going to spend that? You have to think about that when you’re in your 40s and 50s.”
 

9. Show Them the Money

Illness and injury, on top of everything else, can be really expensive.

Even with good insurance, a health problem that requires surgery and/or hospitalization might cost thousands of dollars out of pocket. With mediocre insurance, it might be tens of thousands.

Sometimes, Dr. Frank said, it helps to remind patients of the price they paid for their treatment. “I’ll say, ‘Let’s get moving so you don’t have to pay for this again.’ ”

Protecting their investment can be a powerful motivation.
 

10. Make It a Team Effort

While the doctors we interviewed have a wide range of specialties — cardiology, sports medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, orthopedics, and physical therapy — their patients have one thing in common.

They don’t want to be in a doctor’s office. It means they have something, need something, or broke something.

It might be a treatable condition that’s merely inconvenient or a life-threatening event that’s flat-out terrifying.

Whatever it is, it pulls them out of their normal world. It can be a lonely, disorienting experience.

Sometimes the best thing a doctor can do is stay connected with the patient. “This is like a team sport,” Dr. Frank tells her patients. “I’m going to be your coach, but you’re the captain of the team.”

In some cases, she’ll ask the patient to message her on the portal after completing the daily or weekly exercises. That alone might motivate the patient — especially when she responds to their messages.

After all, nobody wants to let the coach down.
 

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

We know exercise can be a powerful medical intervention. Now scientists are finally starting to understand why.

A recent study in rats found that exercise positively changes virtually every tissue in the body. The research was part of a large National Institutes of Health initiative called MoTrPAC (Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium) to understand how physical activity improves health and prevents disease. As part of the project, a large human study is also underway.

“What was mind-blowing to me was just how much every organ changed,” said cardiologist Euan A. Ashley, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the study’s lead author. “You really are a different person on exercise.”

The study examined hundreds of previously sedentary rats that exercised on a treadmill for 8 weeks. Their tissues were compared with a control group of rats that stayed sedentary.

Your patients, unlike lab animals, can’t be randomly assigned to run on a treadmill until you switch the machine off.

So how do you persuade your patients to become more active?

We asked seven doctors what works for them. They shared 10 of their most effective persuasion tactics.
 

1. Focus on the First Step

“It’s easy to say you want to change behavior,” said Jordan Metzl, MD, a sports medicine specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City who instructs medical students on how to prescribe exercise. “It’s much more difficult to do it.”

He compares it with moving a tractor tire from point A to point B. The hardest part is lifting the tire off the ground and starting to move it. “Once it’s rolling, it takes much less effort to keep it going in the same direction,” he said.

How much exercise a patient does is irrelevant until they’ve given that tire its first push.

“Any amount of exercise is better than nothing,” Dr. Ashley said. “Let’s just start with that. Making the move from sitting a lot to standing more has genuine health benefits.” 
 

2. Mind Your Language

Many patients have a deep-rooted aversion to words and phrases associated with physical activity.

“Exercise” is one. “Working out” is another.

“I often tell them they just have to start moving,” said Chris Raynor, MD, an orthopedic surgeon based in Ottawa, Ontario. “Don’t think about it as working out. Think about it as just moving. Start with something they already like doing and work from there.”
 

3. Make It Manageable

This also applies to patients who’re injured and either waiting for or recovering from surgery.

“Joints like motion,” said Rachel M. Frank, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine, Denver, Colorado. “The more mobile you can be, the easier your recovery’s going to be.”

That can be a challenge for a patient who wasn’t active before the injury, especially if he or she is fixed on the idea that exercise doesn’t matter unless they do it for 30-45 minutes at a time.

“I try to break it down into manageable bits they can do at home,” Dr. Frank said. “I say, ‘Look, you brush your teeth twice a day, right? Can you do these exercises for 5 or 10 minutes before or after you brush your teeth?’ ”
 

4. Connect Their Interests to Their Activity Level

Chad Waterbury, DPT, thought he knew how to motivate a postsurgical patient to become more active and improve her odds for a full recovery. He told her she’d feel better and have more energy — all the usual selling points.

None of it impressed her.

But one day she mentioned that she’d recently become a grandmother for the first time. Dr. Waterbury, a physical therapist based in Los Angeles, noticed how she lit up when she talked about her new granddaughter.

“So I started giving her scenarios, like taking her daughter to Disneyland when she’s 9 or 10. You have to be somewhat fit to do something like that.”

It worked, and Dr. Waterbury learned a fundamental lesson in motivation. “You have to connect the exercise to something that’s important in their life,” he said.
 

5. Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste

“There are very few things more motivating than having a heart attack,” Dr. Ashley said. “For the vast majority of people, that’s a very sobering moment where they reassess everything in their lives.”

There’ll never be a better time to persuade a patient to become more active. In his cardiology practice, Dr. Ashley has seen a lot of patients make that switch.

“They really do start to prioritize their health in a way they never did before,” he said.
 

6. Emphasize the Practical Over the Ideal

Not all patients attach negative feelings to working out. For some, it’s the goal.

Todd Ivan, MD, calls it the “ ’I need to get to the gym’ lament”: Something they’ve aspired to but rarely if ever done.

“I tell them I’d welcome a half-hour walk every day to get started,” said Dr. Ivan, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Summa Health in Akron, Ohio. “It’s a way to introduce the idea that fitness begins with small adjustments.”
 

7. Go Beneath the Surface

“Exercise doesn’t generally result in great weight loss,” said endocrinologist Karl Nadolsky, DO, an obesity specialist and co-host of the Docs Who Lift podcast.

But a lot of his patients struggle to break that connection. It’s understandable, given how many times they’ve been told they’d weigh less if they moved more.

Dr. Nadolsky tells them it’s what’s on the inside that counts. “I explain it as very literal, meaning their physical health, metabolic health, and mental health.”

By reframing physical activity with an internal rather than external focus — the plumbing and wiring vs the shutters and shingles — he gives them permission to approach exercise as a health upgrade rather than yet another part of their lifelong struggle to lose weight.

“A significant number of our patients respond well to that,” he said.
 

8. Appeal to Their Intellect

Some patients think like doctors: No matter how reluctant they may be to change their mind about something, they’ll respond to evidence.

Dr. Frank has learned to identify these scientifically inclined patients. “I’ll flood them with data,” she said. “I’ll say, ‘These studies show that if you do x, y, z, your outcome will be better.’ ”

Dr. Ashley takes a similar approach when his patients give him the most common reason for not exercising: “I don’t have time.”

He tells them that exercise doesn’t take time. It gives you time.

That’s according to a 2012 study of more than 650,000 adults that associated physical activity with an increased lifespan.

As one of the authors said in an interview, a middle-aged person who gets 150 minutes a week of moderate exercise will, on average, gain 7 more minutes of life for each minute of exercise, compared with someone who doesn’t get any exercise.

The strategy works because it brings patients out of their day-to-day lives and into the future, Dr. Ashley said.

“What about your entire life?” he asks them. “You’re actually in this world for 80-plus years, you hope. How are you going to spend that? You have to think about that when you’re in your 40s and 50s.”
 

9. Show Them the Money

Illness and injury, on top of everything else, can be really expensive.

Even with good insurance, a health problem that requires surgery and/or hospitalization might cost thousands of dollars out of pocket. With mediocre insurance, it might be tens of thousands.

Sometimes, Dr. Frank said, it helps to remind patients of the price they paid for their treatment. “I’ll say, ‘Let’s get moving so you don’t have to pay for this again.’ ”

Protecting their investment can be a powerful motivation.
 

10. Make It a Team Effort

While the doctors we interviewed have a wide range of specialties — cardiology, sports medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, orthopedics, and physical therapy — their patients have one thing in common.

They don’t want to be in a doctor’s office. It means they have something, need something, or broke something.

It might be a treatable condition that’s merely inconvenient or a life-threatening event that’s flat-out terrifying.

Whatever it is, it pulls them out of their normal world. It can be a lonely, disorienting experience.

Sometimes the best thing a doctor can do is stay connected with the patient. “This is like a team sport,” Dr. Frank tells her patients. “I’m going to be your coach, but you’re the captain of the team.”

In some cases, she’ll ask the patient to message her on the portal after completing the daily or weekly exercises. That alone might motivate the patient — especially when she responds to their messages.

After all, nobody wants to let the coach down.
 

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

Adding baseline MRI to conventional prostate cancer risk stratification could improve prognostic accuracy, potentially affecting active surveillance and treatment decisions for some patients, according to the investigators on a new trial.

The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.

This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.

The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.

Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.

These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
 

How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?

The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.

“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.

After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001). 

“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”

Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
 

How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?

Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.

For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.

“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”

Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.

“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
 

How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?

“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.

“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.  

First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
 

What Were Some Limitations of This Study?

“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.” 

How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images. 

When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.

“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”

Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.

“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adding baseline MRI to conventional prostate cancer risk stratification could improve prognostic accuracy, potentially affecting active surveillance and treatment decisions for some patients, according to the investigators on a new trial.

The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.

This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.

The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.

Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.

These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
 

How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?

The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.

“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.

After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001). 

“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”

Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
 

How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?

Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.

For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.

“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”

Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.

“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
 

How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?

“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.

“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.  

First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
 

What Were Some Limitations of This Study?

“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.” 

How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images. 

When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.

“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”

Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.

“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adding baseline MRI to conventional prostate cancer risk stratification could improve prognostic accuracy, potentially affecting active surveillance and treatment decisions for some patients, according to the investigators on a new trial.

The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.

This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.

The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.

Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.

These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
 

How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?

The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.

“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.

After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001). 

“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”

Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
 

How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?

Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.

For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.

“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”

Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.

“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
 

How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?

“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.

“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.  

First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
 

What Were Some Limitations of This Study?

“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.” 

How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images. 

When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.

“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”

Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.

“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Prior exposure to conventional irinotecan does not affect survival in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who are subsequently treated with the liposomal formulation nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal‐IRI), according to a meta-analysis of real-world studies.

“The selection of later lines of chemotherapy regimens should be based on the differential safety profile, patient status, the cost of treatment, and health‐related quality of life,” reported lead author Amol Gupta, MD, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.

The findings, published in Cancer on July 10, 2024, are “noteworthy with respect to calling attention to this important situation and the role of a new drug in the PDAC pharmacologic armamentarium,” Vincent J. Picozzi, MD from the Division of Hematology‐Oncology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Treatment of PDAC remains a challenge, the authors noted, as most diagnoses occur at a metastatic or locally advanced stage at which treatments provide only modest benefits and significant toxicities.

The introduction of the first‐line FOLFIRINOX regimen (fluorouracil [5‐FU], leucovorin [LV], irinotecan [IRI], and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin‐bound (nab)‐paclitaxel “has improved the survival of patients with advanced PDAC and increased the number of patients eligible for subsequent therapies” beyond the first-line setting, according to the authors. But survival benefits with FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine‐based therapy remain poor, with median overall survival (OS) of 6 and 7.6 months, respectively, they noted.
 

Timing Liposomal Irinotecan

The liposomal formulation of IRI has resulted in improved pharmacokinetics and decreased toxicity, but use of this new formulation in later lines of therapy is sometimes limited by concerns that prior exposure to conventional IRI in FOLFIRINOX might produce cross-resistance and reduce the benefit of nal-IRI, the authors explained.

To examine this question, the researchers included eight retrospective chart reviews published up until April 2023 that included a total of 1368 patients who were treated with nal-IRI for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC (five studies) or locally advanced or metastatic PDAC (three studies). Patients ranged in age from 57.8 to 65 years, with the proportion of male patients ranging from 45.7% to 68.6%. The sample sizes of the studies ranged from 29 to 675 patients, with a follow-up range of 6-12.9 months.

Between 84.5% and 100% of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy, with prior IRI exposure ranging from 20.9% to 100%. In total, 499 patients had prior IRI exposure, mostly in the first-line setting. When reported, most patients gave the reason for IRI discontinuation as disease progression.

Across all patients, the pooled progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 2.02 months and 4.26 months, respectively, with comparable outcomes in patients with prior IRI exposure compared with those without: PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.94-1.47; P = .17) and OS (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.95-1.42; P = .16), respectively. This held true regardless of whether patients had experienced progressive disease on conventional IRI. Specifically, the PFS and OS of patients who discontinued conventional IRI because of progressive disease were comparable (HR, 1.50 and HR, 1.70) with those of patients who did not have progressive disease.

The authors reported there was substantial variation in predictors of nal-IRI outcomes among the studies examined. One study reported a numerical but not statistically significant better PFS and OS associated with longer IRI exposure and a higher cumulative dose of prior IRI. Two studies suggested worse PFS and OS associated with later treatment lines of nal-IRI, although adjusted HR did not reflect this. Sequence of treatment was a significant predictor of outcome, as were surgery and metastatic disease, bone and liver metastases, serum albumin < 40 g/L, a neutrophil‐to-lymphocyte ratio > 5, and an elevated baseline carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 level.

“There are several reasons to consider why nal‐IRI may be effective after standard IRI has failed to be so,” said Dr. Picozzi, suggesting pharmacokinetics or an improved tumor tissue/normal tissue exposure ratio as possible explanations. “However, as the authors point out, the results from this pooled, retrospective review could also simply be the result of methodological bias (eg, selection bias) or patient selection,” he added.

“Perhaps the best way of considering the results of the analysis (remembering that the median PFS was essentially the same as the first restaging visit) is that nal‐IRI may be just another in a list of suboptimal treatment options in this situation, he wrote. “If its inherent activity is very low in third‐line treatment (like all other agents to date), the use and response to prior standard IRI may be largely irrelevant.”

Consequently, he concurs with the authors that the selection of third-line treatment options and beyond for advanced APDAC should not be influenced by prior IRI exposure.
 

First-Line Liposomal Irinotecan Approved

In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nal-IRI (Onivyde) as part of a new first-line regimen for first-line metastatic PDAC. In the new regimen (NALIRIFOX), nal-IRI is substituted for the conventional IRI found in FOLFIRINOX, boosting the cost more than 15-fold from around $500-$7800 per cycle.

The FDA approval was based on the results of the NAPOLI-3 study, which did not compare outcomes of NALIRIFOX with FOLFIRINOX, but rather, compared first-line nal-IRI with the combination of nab‐paclitaxel and gemcitabine. The study showed longer OS (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99; P = .04) and PFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83; P < .001), with first-line nal-IRI.

The absence of a head-to-head comparison has some oncologists debating whether the new regimen is a potential new standard first-line treatment or whether the cost outweighs the potential benefits.

One study author reported grants/contracts from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Curegenix, Medivir, Merck, and Nouscom; personal/consulting fees from Bayer, Catenion, G1 Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Merus, Nouscom, Regeneron, Sirtex Medical Inc., Tango Therapeutics, and Tavotek Biotherapeutics; and support for other professional activities from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck outside the submitted work. Another study author reported personal/consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, IDEAYA Biosciences, Merck, Merus, Moderna, RenovoRx, Seattle Genetics, and TriSalus Life Sciences outside the submitted work. The remaining authors and Picozzi disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Prior exposure to conventional irinotecan does not affect survival in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who are subsequently treated with the liposomal formulation nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal‐IRI), according to a meta-analysis of real-world studies.

“The selection of later lines of chemotherapy regimens should be based on the differential safety profile, patient status, the cost of treatment, and health‐related quality of life,” reported lead author Amol Gupta, MD, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.

The findings, published in Cancer on July 10, 2024, are “noteworthy with respect to calling attention to this important situation and the role of a new drug in the PDAC pharmacologic armamentarium,” Vincent J. Picozzi, MD from the Division of Hematology‐Oncology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Treatment of PDAC remains a challenge, the authors noted, as most diagnoses occur at a metastatic or locally advanced stage at which treatments provide only modest benefits and significant toxicities.

The introduction of the first‐line FOLFIRINOX regimen (fluorouracil [5‐FU], leucovorin [LV], irinotecan [IRI], and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin‐bound (nab)‐paclitaxel “has improved the survival of patients with advanced PDAC and increased the number of patients eligible for subsequent therapies” beyond the first-line setting, according to the authors. But survival benefits with FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine‐based therapy remain poor, with median overall survival (OS) of 6 and 7.6 months, respectively, they noted.
 

Timing Liposomal Irinotecan

The liposomal formulation of IRI has resulted in improved pharmacokinetics and decreased toxicity, but use of this new formulation in later lines of therapy is sometimes limited by concerns that prior exposure to conventional IRI in FOLFIRINOX might produce cross-resistance and reduce the benefit of nal-IRI, the authors explained.

To examine this question, the researchers included eight retrospective chart reviews published up until April 2023 that included a total of 1368 patients who were treated with nal-IRI for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC (five studies) or locally advanced or metastatic PDAC (three studies). Patients ranged in age from 57.8 to 65 years, with the proportion of male patients ranging from 45.7% to 68.6%. The sample sizes of the studies ranged from 29 to 675 patients, with a follow-up range of 6-12.9 months.

Between 84.5% and 100% of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy, with prior IRI exposure ranging from 20.9% to 100%. In total, 499 patients had prior IRI exposure, mostly in the first-line setting. When reported, most patients gave the reason for IRI discontinuation as disease progression.

Across all patients, the pooled progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 2.02 months and 4.26 months, respectively, with comparable outcomes in patients with prior IRI exposure compared with those without: PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.94-1.47; P = .17) and OS (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.95-1.42; P = .16), respectively. This held true regardless of whether patients had experienced progressive disease on conventional IRI. Specifically, the PFS and OS of patients who discontinued conventional IRI because of progressive disease were comparable (HR, 1.50 and HR, 1.70) with those of patients who did not have progressive disease.

The authors reported there was substantial variation in predictors of nal-IRI outcomes among the studies examined. One study reported a numerical but not statistically significant better PFS and OS associated with longer IRI exposure and a higher cumulative dose of prior IRI. Two studies suggested worse PFS and OS associated with later treatment lines of nal-IRI, although adjusted HR did not reflect this. Sequence of treatment was a significant predictor of outcome, as were surgery and metastatic disease, bone and liver metastases, serum albumin < 40 g/L, a neutrophil‐to-lymphocyte ratio > 5, and an elevated baseline carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 level.

“There are several reasons to consider why nal‐IRI may be effective after standard IRI has failed to be so,” said Dr. Picozzi, suggesting pharmacokinetics or an improved tumor tissue/normal tissue exposure ratio as possible explanations. “However, as the authors point out, the results from this pooled, retrospective review could also simply be the result of methodological bias (eg, selection bias) or patient selection,” he added.

“Perhaps the best way of considering the results of the analysis (remembering that the median PFS was essentially the same as the first restaging visit) is that nal‐IRI may be just another in a list of suboptimal treatment options in this situation, he wrote. “If its inherent activity is very low in third‐line treatment (like all other agents to date), the use and response to prior standard IRI may be largely irrelevant.”

Consequently, he concurs with the authors that the selection of third-line treatment options and beyond for advanced APDAC should not be influenced by prior IRI exposure.
 

First-Line Liposomal Irinotecan Approved

In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nal-IRI (Onivyde) as part of a new first-line regimen for first-line metastatic PDAC. In the new regimen (NALIRIFOX), nal-IRI is substituted for the conventional IRI found in FOLFIRINOX, boosting the cost more than 15-fold from around $500-$7800 per cycle.

The FDA approval was based on the results of the NAPOLI-3 study, which did not compare outcomes of NALIRIFOX with FOLFIRINOX, but rather, compared first-line nal-IRI with the combination of nab‐paclitaxel and gemcitabine. The study showed longer OS (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99; P = .04) and PFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83; P < .001), with first-line nal-IRI.

The absence of a head-to-head comparison has some oncologists debating whether the new regimen is a potential new standard first-line treatment or whether the cost outweighs the potential benefits.

One study author reported grants/contracts from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Curegenix, Medivir, Merck, and Nouscom; personal/consulting fees from Bayer, Catenion, G1 Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Merus, Nouscom, Regeneron, Sirtex Medical Inc., Tango Therapeutics, and Tavotek Biotherapeutics; and support for other professional activities from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck outside the submitted work. Another study author reported personal/consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, IDEAYA Biosciences, Merck, Merus, Moderna, RenovoRx, Seattle Genetics, and TriSalus Life Sciences outside the submitted work. The remaining authors and Picozzi disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Prior exposure to conventional irinotecan does not affect survival in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who are subsequently treated with the liposomal formulation nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal‐IRI), according to a meta-analysis of real-world studies.

“The selection of later lines of chemotherapy regimens should be based on the differential safety profile, patient status, the cost of treatment, and health‐related quality of life,” reported lead author Amol Gupta, MD, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.

The findings, published in Cancer on July 10, 2024, are “noteworthy with respect to calling attention to this important situation and the role of a new drug in the PDAC pharmacologic armamentarium,” Vincent J. Picozzi, MD from the Division of Hematology‐Oncology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Treatment of PDAC remains a challenge, the authors noted, as most diagnoses occur at a metastatic or locally advanced stage at which treatments provide only modest benefits and significant toxicities.

The introduction of the first‐line FOLFIRINOX regimen (fluorouracil [5‐FU], leucovorin [LV], irinotecan [IRI], and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin‐bound (nab)‐paclitaxel “has improved the survival of patients with advanced PDAC and increased the number of patients eligible for subsequent therapies” beyond the first-line setting, according to the authors. But survival benefits with FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine‐based therapy remain poor, with median overall survival (OS) of 6 and 7.6 months, respectively, they noted.
 

Timing Liposomal Irinotecan

The liposomal formulation of IRI has resulted in improved pharmacokinetics and decreased toxicity, but use of this new formulation in later lines of therapy is sometimes limited by concerns that prior exposure to conventional IRI in FOLFIRINOX might produce cross-resistance and reduce the benefit of nal-IRI, the authors explained.

To examine this question, the researchers included eight retrospective chart reviews published up until April 2023 that included a total of 1368 patients who were treated with nal-IRI for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC (five studies) or locally advanced or metastatic PDAC (three studies). Patients ranged in age from 57.8 to 65 years, with the proportion of male patients ranging from 45.7% to 68.6%. The sample sizes of the studies ranged from 29 to 675 patients, with a follow-up range of 6-12.9 months.

Between 84.5% and 100% of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy, with prior IRI exposure ranging from 20.9% to 100%. In total, 499 patients had prior IRI exposure, mostly in the first-line setting. When reported, most patients gave the reason for IRI discontinuation as disease progression.

Across all patients, the pooled progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 2.02 months and 4.26 months, respectively, with comparable outcomes in patients with prior IRI exposure compared with those without: PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.94-1.47; P = .17) and OS (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.95-1.42; P = .16), respectively. This held true regardless of whether patients had experienced progressive disease on conventional IRI. Specifically, the PFS and OS of patients who discontinued conventional IRI because of progressive disease were comparable (HR, 1.50 and HR, 1.70) with those of patients who did not have progressive disease.

The authors reported there was substantial variation in predictors of nal-IRI outcomes among the studies examined. One study reported a numerical but not statistically significant better PFS and OS associated with longer IRI exposure and a higher cumulative dose of prior IRI. Two studies suggested worse PFS and OS associated with later treatment lines of nal-IRI, although adjusted HR did not reflect this. Sequence of treatment was a significant predictor of outcome, as were surgery and metastatic disease, bone and liver metastases, serum albumin < 40 g/L, a neutrophil‐to-lymphocyte ratio > 5, and an elevated baseline carbohydrate antigen 19‐9 level.

“There are several reasons to consider why nal‐IRI may be effective after standard IRI has failed to be so,” said Dr. Picozzi, suggesting pharmacokinetics or an improved tumor tissue/normal tissue exposure ratio as possible explanations. “However, as the authors point out, the results from this pooled, retrospective review could also simply be the result of methodological bias (eg, selection bias) or patient selection,” he added.

“Perhaps the best way of considering the results of the analysis (remembering that the median PFS was essentially the same as the first restaging visit) is that nal‐IRI may be just another in a list of suboptimal treatment options in this situation, he wrote. “If its inherent activity is very low in third‐line treatment (like all other agents to date), the use and response to prior standard IRI may be largely irrelevant.”

Consequently, he concurs with the authors that the selection of third-line treatment options and beyond for advanced APDAC should not be influenced by prior IRI exposure.
 

First-Line Liposomal Irinotecan Approved

In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nal-IRI (Onivyde) as part of a new first-line regimen for first-line metastatic PDAC. In the new regimen (NALIRIFOX), nal-IRI is substituted for the conventional IRI found in FOLFIRINOX, boosting the cost more than 15-fold from around $500-$7800 per cycle.

The FDA approval was based on the results of the NAPOLI-3 study, which did not compare outcomes of NALIRIFOX with FOLFIRINOX, but rather, compared first-line nal-IRI with the combination of nab‐paclitaxel and gemcitabine. The study showed longer OS (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99; P = .04) and PFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83; P < .001), with first-line nal-IRI.

The absence of a head-to-head comparison has some oncologists debating whether the new regimen is a potential new standard first-line treatment or whether the cost outweighs the potential benefits.

One study author reported grants/contracts from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Curegenix, Medivir, Merck, and Nouscom; personal/consulting fees from Bayer, Catenion, G1 Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Merus, Nouscom, Regeneron, Sirtex Medical Inc., Tango Therapeutics, and Tavotek Biotherapeutics; and support for other professional activities from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck outside the submitted work. Another study author reported personal/consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, IDEAYA Biosciences, Merck, Merus, Moderna, RenovoRx, Seattle Genetics, and TriSalus Life Sciences outside the submitted work. The remaining authors and Picozzi disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

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

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

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

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

A growing body of research has increasingly connected hearing loss with a higher risk for dementia. In addition, some studies suggest that wearing hearing aids may help prevent dementia, though one study was recently voluntarily retracted due to methodological errors.

Given the overall evidence, how robust are these associations? And what guidance should clinicians provide to their patients?

Frank Lin, MD, PhD, a clinician and professor of otolaryngology and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized that the evidence from the past 10-15 years strongly links hearing loss to cognitive decline.

While quantifying the exact increase in risk is challenging, Dr. Lin said, “there’s no doubt about it; it’s not trivial.”

With respect to the potential link between hearing aids and dementia prevention, Dr. Lin is involved in the ongoing ACHIEVE randomized trial. Results presented at the 2023 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published in The Lancet revealed participants who used hearing aids experienced a significant slowing of cognitive decline compared with those who received health education.

“It’s a no-risk intervention that can benefit social function, and for people at risk for cognitive decline, it can actually benefit cognitive health,” Dr. Lin said.
 

Potential Mechanisms

Dr. Lin pointed out that the Lancet Commission on Dementia identifies hearing impairment as one of the most significant risk factors for dementia. Overall, the consensus from most studies is that hearing loss definitely increases the risk for cognitive decline and dementia, he said.

Several hypotheses may explain this connection, and Dr. Lin believes that a combination of three key mechanisms is likely to be central to understanding this link.

The first theory focuses on cognitive load. As people experience age-related hearing changes, “the inner ear is no longer sending signals clearly to the brain,” Dr. Lin explained. This forces the brain to work harder, increasing its cognitive load as it reallocates resources to assist with hearing.

Dr. Lin emphasized that this is a hypothesis and does not prove hearing loss directly causes cognitive decline or dementia. Rather, it suggests that hearing loss accelerates the “unmasking” of cognitive issues. Brain resources that might otherwise buffer against dementia’s pathologic triggers are consumed earlier due to the demands of managing hearing loss.

The second potential mechanism suggests that hearing loss may have detrimental effects on brain structure and function over time — a theory supported by several recent studies.

These studies show that individuals with more severe hearing loss experience faster rates of brain atrophy. The reduced stimulation from poor auditory signals accelerates brain atrophy, Dr. Lin explained.

The third hypothesis focuses on social isolation. Individuals with hearing loss may engage less in social activities, reducing cognitive stimulation and overall social interaction. It’s well-known that social engagement and cognitive stimulation are crucial for maintaining cognitive health over time, Dr. Lin said.

Overall, Dr. Lin believes that the association between hearing loss and an increased risk for cognitive decline likely involves a combination of all three potential mechanisms. It’s not a matter of one theory being right and the others being wrong, he said.
 

The Role of Hearing Aids

However, the jury is out on the role of hearing aids in preventing dementia.

A large observational study published in 2023 in Lancet Public Health was hailed by its investigators as providing “the best evidence to date” that hearing aids could mitigate the impact of hearing loss on dementia (Lancet Public Health. 2023 May;8[5]:e329-e338. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[23]00048-8). However, the authors voluntarily retracted the paper in December 2023 due to a coding error.

Despite this, a large meta-analysis published in JAMA Neurology suggested that hearing aids might reduce cognitive decline and dementia risk and even enhance short-term cognitive function.

Additionally, the ACHIEVE study, the first randomized trial to investigate these issues, included nearly 1000 older participants from two populations — those from the ARIC study and healthy volunteers. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a hearing intervention or education on healthy aging.

Although the primary endpoint of change in standardized neurocognitive scores at year 3 showed no significant difference between the hearing intervention and health education groups, the ARIC cohort experienced a notable 48% reduction in cognitive decline with hearing aids compared with education.

Dr. Lin explained that, due to the study’s design, the control group was healthier than the ARIC cohort, which was at higher risk for cognitive decline due to factors such as age and diabetes. This is where they observed a strong effect of hearing intervention in reducing cognitive decline within just 3 years, Dr. Lin said.

Conversely, the hearing aids had minimal impact on the healthy controls, likely because they had not experienced cognitive decline to begin with. Essentially, the benefits of hearing aids were more apparent once cognitive issues were already present.

“It seems sort of obvious. In a group of people who aren’t at risk for cognitive decline, a hearing intervention isn’t going to benefit their cognition” in the short term, Dr. Lin noted. That said, the investigators are continuing to follow the healthy controls to determine whether hearing aids lower dementia risk over the long term.
 

Which Comes First?

Some experts have questioned the directionality of the link between hearing aids and dementia — do hearing aids reduce dementia risk or are individuals with dementia simply less likely to use them?

Dr. Lin noted that observational studies often have confounders. For instance, people who use hearing aids are often healthier and better educated. This makes it difficult to distinguish the effect of the intervention from the factors that led people to use it, he said.

In contrast, the ACHIEVE trial, a randomized study, was designed to separate these factors from the hearing intervention, Dr. Lin explained.

However, he added that ACHIEVE was not specifically powered to assess dementia development, focusing instead on cognitive decline. The investigators plan long-term follow-up of participants to evaluate the impact on dementia in the future.

So, given the current evidence, what should clinicians tell their patients?

Because all people experience some degree of hearing changes as they age, which can gradually affect communication and social engagement, it’s important for everyone to be aware of their hearing health, Dr. Lin said.

He noted there are apps available that allow individuals to measure their hearing with their phones, including determining their “hearing number.”

With respect to hearing aids, Dr. Lin noted that if individuals have trouble participating in everyday activities, addressing hearing issues and considering a hearing intervention is crucial.

There’s no medical risk associated with hearing aids, he said. Even if they only improve social activities and engagement, that’s a benefit. If they also have potential positive effects on cognitive health, “even better,” he added.

Dr. Lin noted that as of 2022, hearing aids are now available over the counter, a move that has improved accessibility. In addition, new technologies, such as stylish “hearing aid glasses,” are being developed to offer more appealing options and reduce the stigma associated with traditional devices.

People often view hearing loss as a significant life event and are reluctant to admit they need hearing aids. However, focusing on “what’s your hearing?” as a neutral tracking metric could make it easier to adopt new technologies in the future, Lin said.
 

Alzheimer’s Association Weighs in

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president, Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, echoed Dr. Lin, noting that there has been substantial research showing a link between hearing loss and cognitive decline.

“This association is something that we have seen repeated and replicated in a number of different studies. What we don’t know is the cause and effect,” Dr. Snyder said.

She noted it is unknown whether there is a causal link between hearing loss and cognitive decline and/or whether cognitive decline may contribute to hearing loss. These are some of the “big questions” that remain, said Dr. Snyder.

Still, she noted that hearing health is an important part of quality of life and overall brain health and “should be part of the conversation” between clinicians and their patients.

Discussing the results of the ACHIEVE study, Dr. Snyder highlighted that while the subgroup at higher risk for cognitive decline did experience significant improvement, the overall population did not show a benefit from the intervention.

The brain “is complex,” and it’s unlikely that a single intervention or target will provide all the benefits, Dr. Snyder said.

She emphasized that addressing hearing loss with hearing aids, combined with managing other modifiable risk factors — such as heart and metabolic health, physical activity, and a balanced diet — appears to offer the greatest potential for synergy and preserving cognition.

Drs. Lin and Snyder reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A growing body of research has increasingly connected hearing loss with a higher risk for dementia. In addition, some studies suggest that wearing hearing aids may help prevent dementia, though one study was recently voluntarily retracted due to methodological errors.

Given the overall evidence, how robust are these associations? And what guidance should clinicians provide to their patients?

Frank Lin, MD, PhD, a clinician and professor of otolaryngology and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized that the evidence from the past 10-15 years strongly links hearing loss to cognitive decline.

While quantifying the exact increase in risk is challenging, Dr. Lin said, “there’s no doubt about it; it’s not trivial.”

With respect to the potential link between hearing aids and dementia prevention, Dr. Lin is involved in the ongoing ACHIEVE randomized trial. Results presented at the 2023 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published in The Lancet revealed participants who used hearing aids experienced a significant slowing of cognitive decline compared with those who received health education.

“It’s a no-risk intervention that can benefit social function, and for people at risk for cognitive decline, it can actually benefit cognitive health,” Dr. Lin said.
 

Potential Mechanisms

Dr. Lin pointed out that the Lancet Commission on Dementia identifies hearing impairment as one of the most significant risk factors for dementia. Overall, the consensus from most studies is that hearing loss definitely increases the risk for cognitive decline and dementia, he said.

Several hypotheses may explain this connection, and Dr. Lin believes that a combination of three key mechanisms is likely to be central to understanding this link.

The first theory focuses on cognitive load. As people experience age-related hearing changes, “the inner ear is no longer sending signals clearly to the brain,” Dr. Lin explained. This forces the brain to work harder, increasing its cognitive load as it reallocates resources to assist with hearing.

Dr. Lin emphasized that this is a hypothesis and does not prove hearing loss directly causes cognitive decline or dementia. Rather, it suggests that hearing loss accelerates the “unmasking” of cognitive issues. Brain resources that might otherwise buffer against dementia’s pathologic triggers are consumed earlier due to the demands of managing hearing loss.

The second potential mechanism suggests that hearing loss may have detrimental effects on brain structure and function over time — a theory supported by several recent studies.

These studies show that individuals with more severe hearing loss experience faster rates of brain atrophy. The reduced stimulation from poor auditory signals accelerates brain atrophy, Dr. Lin explained.

The third hypothesis focuses on social isolation. Individuals with hearing loss may engage less in social activities, reducing cognitive stimulation and overall social interaction. It’s well-known that social engagement and cognitive stimulation are crucial for maintaining cognitive health over time, Dr. Lin said.

Overall, Dr. Lin believes that the association between hearing loss and an increased risk for cognitive decline likely involves a combination of all three potential mechanisms. It’s not a matter of one theory being right and the others being wrong, he said.
 

The Role of Hearing Aids

However, the jury is out on the role of hearing aids in preventing dementia.

A large observational study published in 2023 in Lancet Public Health was hailed by its investigators as providing “the best evidence to date” that hearing aids could mitigate the impact of hearing loss on dementia (Lancet Public Health. 2023 May;8[5]:e329-e338. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[23]00048-8). However, the authors voluntarily retracted the paper in December 2023 due to a coding error.

Despite this, a large meta-analysis published in JAMA Neurology suggested that hearing aids might reduce cognitive decline and dementia risk and even enhance short-term cognitive function.

Additionally, the ACHIEVE study, the first randomized trial to investigate these issues, included nearly 1000 older participants from two populations — those from the ARIC study and healthy volunteers. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a hearing intervention or education on healthy aging.

Although the primary endpoint of change in standardized neurocognitive scores at year 3 showed no significant difference between the hearing intervention and health education groups, the ARIC cohort experienced a notable 48% reduction in cognitive decline with hearing aids compared with education.

Dr. Lin explained that, due to the study’s design, the control group was healthier than the ARIC cohort, which was at higher risk for cognitive decline due to factors such as age and diabetes. This is where they observed a strong effect of hearing intervention in reducing cognitive decline within just 3 years, Dr. Lin said.

Conversely, the hearing aids had minimal impact on the healthy controls, likely because they had not experienced cognitive decline to begin with. Essentially, the benefits of hearing aids were more apparent once cognitive issues were already present.

“It seems sort of obvious. In a group of people who aren’t at risk for cognitive decline, a hearing intervention isn’t going to benefit their cognition” in the short term, Dr. Lin noted. That said, the investigators are continuing to follow the healthy controls to determine whether hearing aids lower dementia risk over the long term.
 

Which Comes First?

Some experts have questioned the directionality of the link between hearing aids and dementia — do hearing aids reduce dementia risk or are individuals with dementia simply less likely to use them?

Dr. Lin noted that observational studies often have confounders. For instance, people who use hearing aids are often healthier and better educated. This makes it difficult to distinguish the effect of the intervention from the factors that led people to use it, he said.

In contrast, the ACHIEVE trial, a randomized study, was designed to separate these factors from the hearing intervention, Dr. Lin explained.

However, he added that ACHIEVE was not specifically powered to assess dementia development, focusing instead on cognitive decline. The investigators plan long-term follow-up of participants to evaluate the impact on dementia in the future.

So, given the current evidence, what should clinicians tell their patients?

Because all people experience some degree of hearing changes as they age, which can gradually affect communication and social engagement, it’s important for everyone to be aware of their hearing health, Dr. Lin said.

He noted there are apps available that allow individuals to measure their hearing with their phones, including determining their “hearing number.”

With respect to hearing aids, Dr. Lin noted that if individuals have trouble participating in everyday activities, addressing hearing issues and considering a hearing intervention is crucial.

There’s no medical risk associated with hearing aids, he said. Even if they only improve social activities and engagement, that’s a benefit. If they also have potential positive effects on cognitive health, “even better,” he added.

Dr. Lin noted that as of 2022, hearing aids are now available over the counter, a move that has improved accessibility. In addition, new technologies, such as stylish “hearing aid glasses,” are being developed to offer more appealing options and reduce the stigma associated with traditional devices.

People often view hearing loss as a significant life event and are reluctant to admit they need hearing aids. However, focusing on “what’s your hearing?” as a neutral tracking metric could make it easier to adopt new technologies in the future, Lin said.
 

Alzheimer’s Association Weighs in

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president, Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, echoed Dr. Lin, noting that there has been substantial research showing a link between hearing loss and cognitive decline.

“This association is something that we have seen repeated and replicated in a number of different studies. What we don’t know is the cause and effect,” Dr. Snyder said.

She noted it is unknown whether there is a causal link between hearing loss and cognitive decline and/or whether cognitive decline may contribute to hearing loss. These are some of the “big questions” that remain, said Dr. Snyder.

Still, she noted that hearing health is an important part of quality of life and overall brain health and “should be part of the conversation” between clinicians and their patients.

Discussing the results of the ACHIEVE study, Dr. Snyder highlighted that while the subgroup at higher risk for cognitive decline did experience significant improvement, the overall population did not show a benefit from the intervention.

The brain “is complex,” and it’s unlikely that a single intervention or target will provide all the benefits, Dr. Snyder said.

She emphasized that addressing hearing loss with hearing aids, combined with managing other modifiable risk factors — such as heart and metabolic health, physical activity, and a balanced diet — appears to offer the greatest potential for synergy and preserving cognition.

Drs. Lin and Snyder reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A growing body of research has increasingly connected hearing loss with a higher risk for dementia. In addition, some studies suggest that wearing hearing aids may help prevent dementia, though one study was recently voluntarily retracted due to methodological errors.

Given the overall evidence, how robust are these associations? And what guidance should clinicians provide to their patients?

Frank Lin, MD, PhD, a clinician and professor of otolaryngology and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized that the evidence from the past 10-15 years strongly links hearing loss to cognitive decline.

While quantifying the exact increase in risk is challenging, Dr. Lin said, “there’s no doubt about it; it’s not trivial.”

With respect to the potential link between hearing aids and dementia prevention, Dr. Lin is involved in the ongoing ACHIEVE randomized trial. Results presented at the 2023 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published in The Lancet revealed participants who used hearing aids experienced a significant slowing of cognitive decline compared with those who received health education.

“It’s a no-risk intervention that can benefit social function, and for people at risk for cognitive decline, it can actually benefit cognitive health,” Dr. Lin said.
 

Potential Mechanisms

Dr. Lin pointed out that the Lancet Commission on Dementia identifies hearing impairment as one of the most significant risk factors for dementia. Overall, the consensus from most studies is that hearing loss definitely increases the risk for cognitive decline and dementia, he said.

Several hypotheses may explain this connection, and Dr. Lin believes that a combination of three key mechanisms is likely to be central to understanding this link.

The first theory focuses on cognitive load. As people experience age-related hearing changes, “the inner ear is no longer sending signals clearly to the brain,” Dr. Lin explained. This forces the brain to work harder, increasing its cognitive load as it reallocates resources to assist with hearing.

Dr. Lin emphasized that this is a hypothesis and does not prove hearing loss directly causes cognitive decline or dementia. Rather, it suggests that hearing loss accelerates the “unmasking” of cognitive issues. Brain resources that might otherwise buffer against dementia’s pathologic triggers are consumed earlier due to the demands of managing hearing loss.

The second potential mechanism suggests that hearing loss may have detrimental effects on brain structure and function over time — a theory supported by several recent studies.

These studies show that individuals with more severe hearing loss experience faster rates of brain atrophy. The reduced stimulation from poor auditory signals accelerates brain atrophy, Dr. Lin explained.

The third hypothesis focuses on social isolation. Individuals with hearing loss may engage less in social activities, reducing cognitive stimulation and overall social interaction. It’s well-known that social engagement and cognitive stimulation are crucial for maintaining cognitive health over time, Dr. Lin said.

Overall, Dr. Lin believes that the association between hearing loss and an increased risk for cognitive decline likely involves a combination of all three potential mechanisms. It’s not a matter of one theory being right and the others being wrong, he said.
 

The Role of Hearing Aids

However, the jury is out on the role of hearing aids in preventing dementia.

A large observational study published in 2023 in Lancet Public Health was hailed by its investigators as providing “the best evidence to date” that hearing aids could mitigate the impact of hearing loss on dementia (Lancet Public Health. 2023 May;8[5]:e329-e338. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[23]00048-8). However, the authors voluntarily retracted the paper in December 2023 due to a coding error.

Despite this, a large meta-analysis published in JAMA Neurology suggested that hearing aids might reduce cognitive decline and dementia risk and even enhance short-term cognitive function.

Additionally, the ACHIEVE study, the first randomized trial to investigate these issues, included nearly 1000 older participants from two populations — those from the ARIC study and healthy volunteers. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a hearing intervention or education on healthy aging.

Although the primary endpoint of change in standardized neurocognitive scores at year 3 showed no significant difference between the hearing intervention and health education groups, the ARIC cohort experienced a notable 48% reduction in cognitive decline with hearing aids compared with education.

Dr. Lin explained that, due to the study’s design, the control group was healthier than the ARIC cohort, which was at higher risk for cognitive decline due to factors such as age and diabetes. This is where they observed a strong effect of hearing intervention in reducing cognitive decline within just 3 years, Dr. Lin said.

Conversely, the hearing aids had minimal impact on the healthy controls, likely because they had not experienced cognitive decline to begin with. Essentially, the benefits of hearing aids were more apparent once cognitive issues were already present.

“It seems sort of obvious. In a group of people who aren’t at risk for cognitive decline, a hearing intervention isn’t going to benefit their cognition” in the short term, Dr. Lin noted. That said, the investigators are continuing to follow the healthy controls to determine whether hearing aids lower dementia risk over the long term.
 

Which Comes First?

Some experts have questioned the directionality of the link between hearing aids and dementia — do hearing aids reduce dementia risk or are individuals with dementia simply less likely to use them?

Dr. Lin noted that observational studies often have confounders. For instance, people who use hearing aids are often healthier and better educated. This makes it difficult to distinguish the effect of the intervention from the factors that led people to use it, he said.

In contrast, the ACHIEVE trial, a randomized study, was designed to separate these factors from the hearing intervention, Dr. Lin explained.

However, he added that ACHIEVE was not specifically powered to assess dementia development, focusing instead on cognitive decline. The investigators plan long-term follow-up of participants to evaluate the impact on dementia in the future.

So, given the current evidence, what should clinicians tell their patients?

Because all people experience some degree of hearing changes as they age, which can gradually affect communication and social engagement, it’s important for everyone to be aware of their hearing health, Dr. Lin said.

He noted there are apps available that allow individuals to measure their hearing with their phones, including determining their “hearing number.”

With respect to hearing aids, Dr. Lin noted that if individuals have trouble participating in everyday activities, addressing hearing issues and considering a hearing intervention is crucial.

There’s no medical risk associated with hearing aids, he said. Even if they only improve social activities and engagement, that’s a benefit. If they also have potential positive effects on cognitive health, “even better,” he added.

Dr. Lin noted that as of 2022, hearing aids are now available over the counter, a move that has improved accessibility. In addition, new technologies, such as stylish “hearing aid glasses,” are being developed to offer more appealing options and reduce the stigma associated with traditional devices.

People often view hearing loss as a significant life event and are reluctant to admit they need hearing aids. However, focusing on “what’s your hearing?” as a neutral tracking metric could make it easier to adopt new technologies in the future, Lin said.
 

Alzheimer’s Association Weighs in

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president, Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, echoed Dr. Lin, noting that there has been substantial research showing a link between hearing loss and cognitive decline.

“This association is something that we have seen repeated and replicated in a number of different studies. What we don’t know is the cause and effect,” Dr. Snyder said.

She noted it is unknown whether there is a causal link between hearing loss and cognitive decline and/or whether cognitive decline may contribute to hearing loss. These are some of the “big questions” that remain, said Dr. Snyder.

Still, she noted that hearing health is an important part of quality of life and overall brain health and “should be part of the conversation” between clinicians and their patients.

Discussing the results of the ACHIEVE study, Dr. Snyder highlighted that while the subgroup at higher risk for cognitive decline did experience significant improvement, the overall population did not show a benefit from the intervention.

The brain “is complex,” and it’s unlikely that a single intervention or target will provide all the benefits, Dr. Snyder said.

She emphasized that addressing hearing loss with hearing aids, combined with managing other modifiable risk factors — such as heart and metabolic health, physical activity, and a balanced diet — appears to offer the greatest potential for synergy and preserving cognition.

Drs. Lin and Snyder reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved lazertinib (Lazcluze) in combination with amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) for upfront treatment of adults with locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations as detected by an FDA-approved test. 

This marks the first approval for lazertinib. Amivantamab was initially approved by the FDA in 2021 and carries a few indications for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Both drugs are manufactured by Janssen Biotech Inc.

“Patients will now have the option of a potential new first-line standard of care with significant clinical benefits over osimertinib,” study investigator Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, director, Virginia Cancer Specialists Research Institute, said in a news release from Johnson & Johnson . 

Lazertinib is an oral, highly selective, third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can penetrate the brain and amivantamab is a bispecific antibody targeting EGFR and MET.

The approval was based on results from the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, which showed that the combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 30% compared with osimertinib.

The MARIPOSA trial randomly allocated 1074 patients with exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution mutation-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease to amivantamab plus lazertinib, osimertinib alone, or lazertinib alone.

Lazertinib plus amivantamab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with osimertinib (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .001). Median progression-free survival was 23.7 months with the combination vs 16.6 months osimertinib alone and 18.5 months with lazertinib alone.

The median duration of response was 9 months longer with the combination compared with osimertinib (25.8 months vs 16.7 months).

The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) were rash, nail toxicity, infusion-related reactions (amivantamab), musculoskeletal pain, edema, stomatitis, venous thromboembolism, paresthesia, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, COVID-19, hemorrhage, dry skin, decreased appetite, pruritus, nausea, and ocular toxicity. 

“A serious safety signal of venous thromboembolic events was observed with lazertinib in combination with amivantamab and prophylactic anticoagulation should be administered for the first four months of therapy,” the FDA noted in a statement announcing the approval.

Results from MARIPOSA were first presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress and published in The New England Journal of Medicine in June. Longer-term follow-up data from MARIPOSA will be presented at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer in September.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved lazertinib (Lazcluze) in combination with amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) for upfront treatment of adults with locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations as detected by an FDA-approved test. 

This marks the first approval for lazertinib. Amivantamab was initially approved by the FDA in 2021 and carries a few indications for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Both drugs are manufactured by Janssen Biotech Inc.

“Patients will now have the option of a potential new first-line standard of care with significant clinical benefits over osimertinib,” study investigator Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, director, Virginia Cancer Specialists Research Institute, said in a news release from Johnson & Johnson . 

Lazertinib is an oral, highly selective, third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can penetrate the brain and amivantamab is a bispecific antibody targeting EGFR and MET.

The approval was based on results from the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, which showed that the combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 30% compared with osimertinib.

The MARIPOSA trial randomly allocated 1074 patients with exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution mutation-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease to amivantamab plus lazertinib, osimertinib alone, or lazertinib alone.

Lazertinib plus amivantamab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with osimertinib (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .001). Median progression-free survival was 23.7 months with the combination vs 16.6 months osimertinib alone and 18.5 months with lazertinib alone.

The median duration of response was 9 months longer with the combination compared with osimertinib (25.8 months vs 16.7 months).

The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) were rash, nail toxicity, infusion-related reactions (amivantamab), musculoskeletal pain, edema, stomatitis, venous thromboembolism, paresthesia, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, COVID-19, hemorrhage, dry skin, decreased appetite, pruritus, nausea, and ocular toxicity. 

“A serious safety signal of venous thromboembolic events was observed with lazertinib in combination with amivantamab and prophylactic anticoagulation should be administered for the first four months of therapy,” the FDA noted in a statement announcing the approval.

Results from MARIPOSA were first presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress and published in The New England Journal of Medicine in June. Longer-term follow-up data from MARIPOSA will be presented at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer in September.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved lazertinib (Lazcluze) in combination with amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) for upfront treatment of adults with locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations as detected by an FDA-approved test. 

This marks the first approval for lazertinib. Amivantamab was initially approved by the FDA in 2021 and carries a few indications for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Both drugs are manufactured by Janssen Biotech Inc.

“Patients will now have the option of a potential new first-line standard of care with significant clinical benefits over osimertinib,” study investigator Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, director, Virginia Cancer Specialists Research Institute, said in a news release from Johnson & Johnson . 

Lazertinib is an oral, highly selective, third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can penetrate the brain and amivantamab is a bispecific antibody targeting EGFR and MET.

The approval was based on results from the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, which showed that the combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 30% compared with osimertinib.

The MARIPOSA trial randomly allocated 1074 patients with exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution mutation-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease to amivantamab plus lazertinib, osimertinib alone, or lazertinib alone.

Lazertinib plus amivantamab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with osimertinib (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .001). Median progression-free survival was 23.7 months with the combination vs 16.6 months osimertinib alone and 18.5 months with lazertinib alone.

The median duration of response was 9 months longer with the combination compared with osimertinib (25.8 months vs 16.7 months).

The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) were rash, nail toxicity, infusion-related reactions (amivantamab), musculoskeletal pain, edema, stomatitis, venous thromboembolism, paresthesia, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, COVID-19, hemorrhage, dry skin, decreased appetite, pruritus, nausea, and ocular toxicity. 

“A serious safety signal of venous thromboembolic events was observed with lazertinib in combination with amivantamab and prophylactic anticoagulation should be administered for the first four months of therapy,” the FDA noted in a statement announcing the approval.

Results from MARIPOSA were first presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress and published in The New England Journal of Medicine in June. Longer-term follow-up data from MARIPOSA will be presented at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer in September.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.