Latest News

TOPLINE: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is associated with reduced risks of rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and type 1 diabetes among females aged 9 to 45 years. The analysis of 208,638 vaccinated individuals shows particularly strong protective effects in those aged 9 to 26 years and recipients of 9-valent HPV vaccines.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the US Collaborative Network in TriNetX spanning January 1, 2018, to December 20, 2022, enrolling 208,638 females aged 9 to 45 years who received HPV vaccination and matching them with 208,638 unvaccinated individuals using propensity scores.

• Analysis included Cox proportional hazard regression to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for immune-mediated diseases, with subgroup analyses stratified by age, race, smoking, obesity, asthma, and HPV vaccine types.

• Participants were monitored from 31 days up to 365 days following their respective index dates, with sensitivity analyses conducted to evaluate short-term outcomes and compare results with influenza virus vaccine recipients.

TAKEAWAY:

• HPV vaccination demonstrated reduced risks for rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.311-0.762), systemic lupus erythematosus (HR, 0.287; 95% CI, 0.179-0.460), and dermatomyositis (HR, 0.299; 95% CI, 0.098-0.908).

• Recipients showed lower risks for inflammatory bowel disease (HR, 0.876; 95% CI, 0.811-0.946), celiac disease (HR, 0.400; 95% CI, 0.304-0.526), and type 1 diabetes (HR, 0.242; 95% CI, 0.184-0.318).

• Subgroup analyses revealed significant risk reductions among females aged 9 to 26 years and those receiving 9-valent HPV vaccines compared to unvaccinated populations.

• White and Black/African American individuals demonstrated reduced risks for various immune-mediated diseases, while Asians showed lower risks only for inflammatory bowel disease and overall immune-mediated diseases.

 IN PRACTICE: "Our real-world investigation employing TriNetX Research Network has revealed a significant reduction in the risks of various immune-mediated diseases, especially among females aged 9-26 years and those who received 9-valent HPV vaccines,” the author wrote.

SOURCE: The study was led by Qianru Zhang, MD, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital in Beijing, China, James Cheng-Chung Wei, and Shiow-Ing Wang who contributed equally as first authors. It was published online in QJM: An International Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:  According to the authors, research relying on Electronic Health Records (EHR) faced several constraints, including the absence of serial data on HPV antibody titers in vaccinated individuals and limited data regarding vaccination dosing numbers. Additionally, the current functionality of TriNetX prevented performing interaction terms in the statistical model for comprehensive subgroup analysis stratified by age, race, and vaccine types.

DISCLOSURES: The study received support from Chung Shan Medical University Hospital (Grant No. CSH-2023-E-001-Y2), Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital (KSVGH 113-117), National Science and Technology Council (NSTC 112-2314-B-075B-020), and KSVNSU112-008. The funders had no role in the study's design, conduct, data analysis, or manuscript approval.

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

TOPLINE: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is associated with reduced risks of rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and type 1 diabetes among females aged 9 to 45 years. The analysis of 208,638 vaccinated individuals shows particularly strong protective effects in those aged 9 to 26 years and recipients of 9-valent HPV vaccines.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the US Collaborative Network in TriNetX spanning January 1, 2018, to December 20, 2022, enrolling 208,638 females aged 9 to 45 years who received HPV vaccination and matching them with 208,638 unvaccinated individuals using propensity scores.

• Analysis included Cox proportional hazard regression to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for immune-mediated diseases, with subgroup analyses stratified by age, race, smoking, obesity, asthma, and HPV vaccine types.

• Participants were monitored from 31 days up to 365 days following their respective index dates, with sensitivity analyses conducted to evaluate short-term outcomes and compare results with influenza virus vaccine recipients.

TAKEAWAY:

• HPV vaccination demonstrated reduced risks for rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.311-0.762), systemic lupus erythematosus (HR, 0.287; 95% CI, 0.179-0.460), and dermatomyositis (HR, 0.299; 95% CI, 0.098-0.908).

• Recipients showed lower risks for inflammatory bowel disease (HR, 0.876; 95% CI, 0.811-0.946), celiac disease (HR, 0.400; 95% CI, 0.304-0.526), and type 1 diabetes (HR, 0.242; 95% CI, 0.184-0.318).

• Subgroup analyses revealed significant risk reductions among females aged 9 to 26 years and those receiving 9-valent HPV vaccines compared to unvaccinated populations.

• White and Black/African American individuals demonstrated reduced risks for various immune-mediated diseases, while Asians showed lower risks only for inflammatory bowel disease and overall immune-mediated diseases.

 IN PRACTICE: "Our real-world investigation employing TriNetX Research Network has revealed a significant reduction in the risks of various immune-mediated diseases, especially among females aged 9-26 years and those who received 9-valent HPV vaccines,” the author wrote.

SOURCE: The study was led by Qianru Zhang, MD, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital in Beijing, China, James Cheng-Chung Wei, and Shiow-Ing Wang who contributed equally as first authors. It was published online in QJM: An International Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:  According to the authors, research relying on Electronic Health Records (EHR) faced several constraints, including the absence of serial data on HPV antibody titers in vaccinated individuals and limited data regarding vaccination dosing numbers. Additionally, the current functionality of TriNetX prevented performing interaction terms in the statistical model for comprehensive subgroup analysis stratified by age, race, and vaccine types.

DISCLOSURES: The study received support from Chung Shan Medical University Hospital (Grant No. CSH-2023-E-001-Y2), Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital (KSVGH 113-117), National Science and Technology Council (NSTC 112-2314-B-075B-020), and KSVNSU112-008. The funders had no role in the study's design, conduct, data analysis, or manuscript approval.

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

TOPLINE: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is associated with reduced risks of rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and type 1 diabetes among females aged 9 to 45 years. The analysis of 208,638 vaccinated individuals shows particularly strong protective effects in those aged 9 to 26 years and recipients of 9-valent HPV vaccines.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the US Collaborative Network in TriNetX spanning January 1, 2018, to December 20, 2022, enrolling 208,638 females aged 9 to 45 years who received HPV vaccination and matching them with 208,638 unvaccinated individuals using propensity scores.

• Analysis included Cox proportional hazard regression to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for immune-mediated diseases, with subgroup analyses stratified by age, race, smoking, obesity, asthma, and HPV vaccine types.

• Participants were monitored from 31 days up to 365 days following their respective index dates, with sensitivity analyses conducted to evaluate short-term outcomes and compare results with influenza virus vaccine recipients.

TAKEAWAY:

• HPV vaccination demonstrated reduced risks for rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.311-0.762), systemic lupus erythematosus (HR, 0.287; 95% CI, 0.179-0.460), and dermatomyositis (HR, 0.299; 95% CI, 0.098-0.908).

• Recipients showed lower risks for inflammatory bowel disease (HR, 0.876; 95% CI, 0.811-0.946), celiac disease (HR, 0.400; 95% CI, 0.304-0.526), and type 1 diabetes (HR, 0.242; 95% CI, 0.184-0.318).

• Subgroup analyses revealed significant risk reductions among females aged 9 to 26 years and those receiving 9-valent HPV vaccines compared to unvaccinated populations.

• White and Black/African American individuals demonstrated reduced risks for various immune-mediated diseases, while Asians showed lower risks only for inflammatory bowel disease and overall immune-mediated diseases.

 IN PRACTICE: "Our real-world investigation employing TriNetX Research Network has revealed a significant reduction in the risks of various immune-mediated diseases, especially among females aged 9-26 years and those who received 9-valent HPV vaccines,” the author wrote.

SOURCE: The study was led by Qianru Zhang, MD, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital in Beijing, China, James Cheng-Chung Wei, and Shiow-Ing Wang who contributed equally as first authors. It was published online in QJM: An International Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:  According to the authors, research relying on Electronic Health Records (EHR) faced several constraints, including the absence of serial data on HPV antibody titers in vaccinated individuals and limited data regarding vaccination dosing numbers. Additionally, the current functionality of TriNetX prevented performing interaction terms in the statistical model for comprehensive subgroup analysis stratified by age, race, and vaccine types.

DISCLOSURES: The study received support from Chung Shan Medical University Hospital (Grant No. CSH-2023-E-001-Y2), Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital (KSVGH 113-117), National Science and Technology Council (NSTC 112-2314-B-075B-020), and KSVNSU112-008. The funders had no role in the study's design, conduct, data analysis, or manuscript approval.

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

A mid-season analysis of the influenza vaccine by the US Department of Defensive (DoD) Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) has reported low to moderate vaccine effectiveness (VE). 

The study included 295 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries (adults and children) who tested positive for influenza and 965 controls who tested negative. Vaccinated patients had received the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. The study conducted VE analyses for influenza A (any subtype), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2). 

Overall, moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was reported in all beneficiaries and children aged 6 months to 17 years. In adults aged 18 to 64 years—and all beneficiaries—there was moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2). VE estimates against influenza A (any subtype) for all beneficiaries, children, and adults were not significant; VE estimates were also not effective among children for influenza A(H3N2) and in adults for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.

Adjusted VE estimates among all participants for influenza A (any subtypes), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2) were 25%, 58%, and 42%, respectively. VE for influenza B was not calculated due to a low number of cases.

Flu vaccination rates for adults are usually in the 30% to 60% range despite the recommended target of 70%. Flu vaccination rates were rising by around 1% to 2% annually before 2020, but began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. In adults aged ≥ 65 years, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-2020 to 43% in 2024-2025.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the end of the 2023-2024 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors offices compared with the baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, private manufacturers have distributed significantly fewer influenza vaccine doses. 

Each March, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meets to analyze the current influenza season and forecast the next. The committee reviews and discusses data on influenza strain circulation and VE, which come from DoDGRPSP analyses. In February, US Department of Health and Human Services officials indefinitely postponed a public meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), at which members were also expected to discuss, among other things, VE and vaccine recommendations. The FDA canceled a March 13 VRBPAC meeting and provided no reason for the cancelation to members. That day, however, the FDA issued new recommendations for the influenza vaccine for the 2025-2026 season without the input of VRBPAC. Instead, experts from the FDA, CDC, and DoD made recommendations after reviewing surveillance data from the US and globally.

For the 2025-2026 influenza season, the FDA recommends the vaccines be trivalent and target 2 strains of influenza A and 1 strain of influenza B. The FDA anticipates there will be an “adequate and diverse supply” of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines. Trivalent flu vaccines are formulated to protect against 3 influenza viruses: an A(H1N1) virus, an A(H3N2) virus, and a B/Victoria virus. All influenza vaccines for the 2025-2026 season are anticipated to be trivalent in the US.

A mid-season analysis of the influenza vaccine by the US Department of Defensive (DoD) Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) has reported low to moderate vaccine effectiveness (VE). 

The study included 295 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries (adults and children) who tested positive for influenza and 965 controls who tested negative. Vaccinated patients had received the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. The study conducted VE analyses for influenza A (any subtype), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2). 

Overall, moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was reported in all beneficiaries and children aged 6 months to 17 years. In adults aged 18 to 64 years—and all beneficiaries—there was moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2). VE estimates against influenza A (any subtype) for all beneficiaries, children, and adults were not significant; VE estimates were also not effective among children for influenza A(H3N2) and in adults for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.

Adjusted VE estimates among all participants for influenza A (any subtypes), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2) were 25%, 58%, and 42%, respectively. VE for influenza B was not calculated due to a low number of cases.

Flu vaccination rates for adults are usually in the 30% to 60% range despite the recommended target of 70%. Flu vaccination rates were rising by around 1% to 2% annually before 2020, but began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. In adults aged ≥ 65 years, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-2020 to 43% in 2024-2025.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the end of the 2023-2024 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors offices compared with the baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, private manufacturers have distributed significantly fewer influenza vaccine doses. 

Each March, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meets to analyze the current influenza season and forecast the next. The committee reviews and discusses data on influenza strain circulation and VE, which come from DoDGRPSP analyses. In February, US Department of Health and Human Services officials indefinitely postponed a public meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), at which members were also expected to discuss, among other things, VE and vaccine recommendations. The FDA canceled a March 13 VRBPAC meeting and provided no reason for the cancelation to members. That day, however, the FDA issued new recommendations for the influenza vaccine for the 2025-2026 season without the input of VRBPAC. Instead, experts from the FDA, CDC, and DoD made recommendations after reviewing surveillance data from the US and globally.

For the 2025-2026 influenza season, the FDA recommends the vaccines be trivalent and target 2 strains of influenza A and 1 strain of influenza B. The FDA anticipates there will be an “adequate and diverse supply” of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines. Trivalent flu vaccines are formulated to protect against 3 influenza viruses: an A(H1N1) virus, an A(H3N2) virus, and a B/Victoria virus. All influenza vaccines for the 2025-2026 season are anticipated to be trivalent in the US.

A mid-season analysis of the influenza vaccine by the US Department of Defensive (DoD) Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) has reported low to moderate vaccine effectiveness (VE). 

The study included 295 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries (adults and children) who tested positive for influenza and 965 controls who tested negative. Vaccinated patients had received the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. The study conducted VE analyses for influenza A (any subtype), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2). 

Overall, moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was reported in all beneficiaries and children aged 6 months to 17 years. In adults aged 18 to 64 years—and all beneficiaries—there was moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2). VE estimates against influenza A (any subtype) for all beneficiaries, children, and adults were not significant; VE estimates were also not effective among children for influenza A(H3N2) and in adults for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.

Adjusted VE estimates among all participants for influenza A (any subtypes), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2) were 25%, 58%, and 42%, respectively. VE for influenza B was not calculated due to a low number of cases.

Flu vaccination rates for adults are usually in the 30% to 60% range despite the recommended target of 70%. Flu vaccination rates were rising by around 1% to 2% annually before 2020, but began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. In adults aged ≥ 65 years, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-2020 to 43% in 2024-2025.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the end of the 2023-2024 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors offices compared with the baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, private manufacturers have distributed significantly fewer influenza vaccine doses. 

Each March, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meets to analyze the current influenza season and forecast the next. The committee reviews and discusses data on influenza strain circulation and VE, which come from DoDGRPSP analyses. In February, US Department of Health and Human Services officials indefinitely postponed a public meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), at which members were also expected to discuss, among other things, VE and vaccine recommendations. The FDA canceled a March 13 VRBPAC meeting and provided no reason for the cancelation to members. That day, however, the FDA issued new recommendations for the influenza vaccine for the 2025-2026 season without the input of VRBPAC. Instead, experts from the FDA, CDC, and DoD made recommendations after reviewing surveillance data from the US and globally.

For the 2025-2026 influenza season, the FDA recommends the vaccines be trivalent and target 2 strains of influenza A and 1 strain of influenza B. The FDA anticipates there will be an “adequate and diverse supply” of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines. Trivalent flu vaccines are formulated to protect against 3 influenza viruses: an A(H1N1) virus, an A(H3N2) virus, and a B/Victoria virus. All influenza vaccines for the 2025-2026 season are anticipated to be trivalent in the US.

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

TOPLINE:Expanding United States Department of Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) eligibility to veterans with other-than-honorable (OTH) discharge significantly increased their program enrollments without impacting services for those with honorable discharge. Emergency department visits increased for honorable discharge veterans while hospitalizations rose for both groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A quality improvement study following SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines analyzed data from 129,873 veterans enrolled in HUD-VASH between June 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021.
• Analysis included 127,876 veterans (98.5%) with honorable/general discharge and 1997 veterans (1.5%) with OTH discharge, with a mean age of 53.7 years.
• Researchers utilized an interrupted time series design to compare program enrollments and healthcare utilization before (June 2019-December 2020) and after (January 2021-September 2021) policy implementation.
• Data linkage between the Homeless Operations and Management Evaluation System database and VA Corporate Data Warehouse enabled tracking of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and primary care visits.
   

TAKEAWAY:

• Monthly HUD-VASH enrollments showed a significant increase for OTH veterans after the policy change (difference in slopes, 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.52), while honorable/general veterans experienced a non-significant increase (difference in slopes, 9.23; 95% CI, −20.35-38.79).
• Emergency department visits demonstrated a significant increase for honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35) but not for OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.08; 
  95% CI, −0.12-0.28).
• Hospitalizations significantly increased for both OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.098; 95% CI, 0.009-0.170) and honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.078; 95% CI, 0.004-0.060).
• Primary care visits showed no significant changes for either group after the policy implementation (OTH: change in slope, −0.12; 95% CI, −0.65-0.42; honorable/general: change in slope, 0.20; 
  95% CI, −0.13-0.53).

IN PRACTICE:“Expanding HUD-VASH eligibility increased access to housing and social support for OTH veterans without disrupting services for those with honorable discharges,” the authors reported. “Efforts should focus on improving access to connecting OTH veterans with clinical services outside of HUD-VASH.”

SOURCE:The study was led by Thomas F. Nubong, MD, Center of Innovation for Long-Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Providence. It was published online on August 5 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially affecting results. Additionally, staff training on the policy change varied across US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites, introducing implementation inconsistencies. The single-group interrupted time series design, while effective for tracking temporal trends, limited formal comparisons between discharge groups.

DISCLOSURES: The analyses were conducted under the VA Homeless Programs Office with operational funding support. Jack Tsai, PhD, and Eric Jutkowitz, PhD, reported being principal investigators of a VA Merit study on the Impact of COVID-19 for the HUD-VASH program. James L. Rudolph, MD, reported receiving grants from Icosavax outside the submitted work and being a United States government employee.

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

TOPLINE:Expanding United States Department of Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) eligibility to veterans with other-than-honorable (OTH) discharge significantly increased their program enrollments without impacting services for those with honorable discharge. Emergency department visits increased for honorable discharge veterans while hospitalizations rose for both groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A quality improvement study following SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines analyzed data from 129,873 veterans enrolled in HUD-VASH between June 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021.
• Analysis included 127,876 veterans (98.5%) with honorable/general discharge and 1997 veterans (1.5%) with OTH discharge, with a mean age of 53.7 years.
• Researchers utilized an interrupted time series design to compare program enrollments and healthcare utilization before (June 2019-December 2020) and after (January 2021-September 2021) policy implementation.
• Data linkage between the Homeless Operations and Management Evaluation System database and VA Corporate Data Warehouse enabled tracking of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and primary care visits.
   

TAKEAWAY:

• Monthly HUD-VASH enrollments showed a significant increase for OTH veterans after the policy change (difference in slopes, 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.52), while honorable/general veterans experienced a non-significant increase (difference in slopes, 9.23; 95% CI, −20.35-38.79).
• Emergency department visits demonstrated a significant increase for honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35) but not for OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.08; 
  95% CI, −0.12-0.28).
• Hospitalizations significantly increased for both OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.098; 95% CI, 0.009-0.170) and honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.078; 95% CI, 0.004-0.060).
• Primary care visits showed no significant changes for either group after the policy implementation (OTH: change in slope, −0.12; 95% CI, −0.65-0.42; honorable/general: change in slope, 0.20; 
  95% CI, −0.13-0.53).

IN PRACTICE:“Expanding HUD-VASH eligibility increased access to housing and social support for OTH veterans without disrupting services for those with honorable discharges,” the authors reported. “Efforts should focus on improving access to connecting OTH veterans with clinical services outside of HUD-VASH.”

SOURCE:The study was led by Thomas F. Nubong, MD, Center of Innovation for Long-Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Providence. It was published online on August 5 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially affecting results. Additionally, staff training on the policy change varied across US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites, introducing implementation inconsistencies. The single-group interrupted time series design, while effective for tracking temporal trends, limited formal comparisons between discharge groups.

DISCLOSURES: The analyses were conducted under the VA Homeless Programs Office with operational funding support. Jack Tsai, PhD, and Eric Jutkowitz, PhD, reported being principal investigators of a VA Merit study on the Impact of COVID-19 for the HUD-VASH program. James L. Rudolph, MD, reported receiving grants from Icosavax outside the submitted work and being a United States government employee.

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

TOPLINE:Expanding United States Department of Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) eligibility to veterans with other-than-honorable (OTH) discharge significantly increased their program enrollments without impacting services for those with honorable discharge. Emergency department visits increased for honorable discharge veterans while hospitalizations rose for both groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A quality improvement study following SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines analyzed data from 129,873 veterans enrolled in HUD-VASH between June 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021.
• Analysis included 127,876 veterans (98.5%) with honorable/general discharge and 1997 veterans (1.5%) with OTH discharge, with a mean age of 53.7 years.
• Researchers utilized an interrupted time series design to compare program enrollments and healthcare utilization before (June 2019-December 2020) and after (January 2021-September 2021) policy implementation.
• Data linkage between the Homeless Operations and Management Evaluation System database and VA Corporate Data Warehouse enabled tracking of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and primary care visits.
   

TAKEAWAY:

• Monthly HUD-VASH enrollments showed a significant increase for OTH veterans after the policy change (difference in slopes, 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.52), while honorable/general veterans experienced a non-significant increase (difference in slopes, 9.23; 95% CI, −20.35-38.79).
• Emergency department visits demonstrated a significant increase for honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35) but not for OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.08; 
  95% CI, −0.12-0.28).
• Hospitalizations significantly increased for both OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.098; 95% CI, 0.009-0.170) and honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.078; 95% CI, 0.004-0.060).
• Primary care visits showed no significant changes for either group after the policy implementation (OTH: change in slope, −0.12; 95% CI, −0.65-0.42; honorable/general: change in slope, 0.20; 
  95% CI, −0.13-0.53).

IN PRACTICE:“Expanding HUD-VASH eligibility increased access to housing and social support for OTH veterans without disrupting services for those with honorable discharges,” the authors reported. “Efforts should focus on improving access to connecting OTH veterans with clinical services outside of HUD-VASH.”

SOURCE:The study was led by Thomas F. Nubong, MD, Center of Innovation for Long-Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Providence. It was published online on August 5 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially affecting results. Additionally, staff training on the policy change varied across US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites, introducing implementation inconsistencies. The single-group interrupted time series design, while effective for tracking temporal trends, limited formal comparisons between discharge groups.

DISCLOSURES: The analyses were conducted under the VA Homeless Programs Office with operational funding support. Jack Tsai, PhD, and Eric Jutkowitz, PhD, reported being principal investigators of a VA Merit study on the Impact of COVID-19 for the HUD-VASH program. James L. Rudolph, MD, reported receiving grants from Icosavax outside the submitted work and being a United States government employee.

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

The Critical Access for Veterans Care Act, S.1868, introduced in May by Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT), would fundamentally reshape how veterans living in rural communities access private health care. The legislation establishes a new paradigm impacting veterans enrolled in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care who reside within 35 miles of any Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-designated Critical Access Hospital (CAH) or affiliated clinic. The bill would allow veterans unprecedented autonomy to self-refer directly to these facilities.

However, despite its seemingly straightforward title, the bill will not expedite care delivery, reduce travel burdens, or enhance network critical care capacity for veterans living in rural areas. Instead, the bill would further privatize veteran health care delivery by permitting veterans within this geographic radius to independently pursue care at CAHs and clinics without prior authorization. The legislation would establish a parallel referral system that erodes the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) eligibility determinations that were meticulously developed under the VA MISSION Act of 2018.

Some lawmakers have repeatedly pushed to eliminate VA's authorization role in the past 6 years, seeking to grant unrestricted private sector access to various veteran populations, particularly those requiring mental health services. Sponsors of the current bill are explicitly pursuing this same objective, characterizing VA authorization as an “unnecessary roadblock” that should be removed. However, this characterization misrepresents the actual function and value of the authorization process.

Over the past 6 years, provisions in the VA MISSION Act and other laws for predetermining veteran eligibility for private care have provided veterans with broad access while maintaining oversight and accountability. Enrolled veterans may receive comprehensive emergency medical and psychiatric care at any health care facility, including CAHs. They are guaranteed unrestricted walk-in urgent care access anywhere in the country. Veterans can also obtain outpatient and inpatient services through VCCP clinicians when they meet the following established access criteria: VA facilities exceed 30-minute travel times for primary and mental health services or 60 minutes for specialty care, or when appointment wait times surpass 20 days for primary/mental health care or 28 days for specialty services. Nearly half of covered veterans used this option in FY2023. 

This bill does more than upend the established paradigm of VCCP eligibility requirements: it also eliminates the critical function of utilization review and accountability. Its passage would establish a dangerous precedent. By eliminating drive time and wait time eligibility standards and simultaneously removing VA’s ability to manage use, the bill generates powerful political momentum to extend identical provisions to all enrolled veterans. Furthermore, this legislation could specifically precipitate the downsizing or closure of VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in areas served by CAHs. North Dakota, for example, operates 5 CBOCs that could be affected. Veterans who live in rural areas within the standard 30- to 60-minute drive time of a CBOC and can secure appointments within the established 20- to 28-day timeframes would no longer be subject to the same eligibility criteria that govern all covered veterans.

The Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI) has serious reservations about legislation that eliminates VA's indispensable authorization and referral functions for supplemental private care. Founded in 2016, the VHPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to analyzing health care, disability compensation, and benefits for US veterans and their families. It provides fact-based research to educate the public and improve care quality both within and outside the VA.

New initiatives threaten to drastically reduce veterans' health and disability benefits through staff cuts and service reductions that will limit access to earned benefits and life-sustaining health care. Attacks against the VA also threaten to erode the training that produces new cohorts of health professionals, dramatically exacerbating the nation’s already dire shortages of physicians, nurses, psychologists and social workers. 

VHPI’s coverage of Veterans Health Administration downsizing within rural health care provides important context. Starting with a comprehensive 15-page white paper published in 2024, VHPI has consistently highlighted how veterans living in rural communities face the same health care access challenges as all rural Americans—living in regions with severe shortages of health care facilities, professionals, and support staff. Lawmakers who assume veterans living in rural areas will experience shorter wait times and drive distances through private sector care fundamentally misunderstand these systemic issues 

VHPI is committed to rigorously scrutinize policies that may compromise high quality care for veterans, especially those living in rural areas.  The organization recently examined the flawed assumptions underlying these misguided policies. On August 12, VHPI released an in-depth analysis of private sector  clinicians’ capacity to care for veterans in across all 50 states titled “Veterans’ Health Care Choice—Myth or Reality? A State- by- State Reality Check of the False Promise of VA Privatization.” This analysis revealed that, in most states, and in all rural states, the private sector system was struggling to meet even the basic needs of non-veterans. As one long time VA expert stated, to imagine that the system could absorb an influx of millions of veterans – particularly when new cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare funding are implemented, is “delusional.”

Russell Lemle and Suzanne Gordon are senior policy analysts at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. Suzanne Gordon is author of Wounds of War.

The Critical Access for Veterans Care Act, S.1868, introduced in May by Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT), would fundamentally reshape how veterans living in rural communities access private health care. The legislation establishes a new paradigm impacting veterans enrolled in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care who reside within 35 miles of any Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-designated Critical Access Hospital (CAH) or affiliated clinic. The bill would allow veterans unprecedented autonomy to self-refer directly to these facilities.

However, despite its seemingly straightforward title, the bill will not expedite care delivery, reduce travel burdens, or enhance network critical care capacity for veterans living in rural areas. Instead, the bill would further privatize veteran health care delivery by permitting veterans within this geographic radius to independently pursue care at CAHs and clinics without prior authorization. The legislation would establish a parallel referral system that erodes the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) eligibility determinations that were meticulously developed under the VA MISSION Act of 2018.

Some lawmakers have repeatedly pushed to eliminate VA's authorization role in the past 6 years, seeking to grant unrestricted private sector access to various veteran populations, particularly those requiring mental health services. Sponsors of the current bill are explicitly pursuing this same objective, characterizing VA authorization as an “unnecessary roadblock” that should be removed. However, this characterization misrepresents the actual function and value of the authorization process.

Over the past 6 years, provisions in the VA MISSION Act and other laws for predetermining veteran eligibility for private care have provided veterans with broad access while maintaining oversight and accountability. Enrolled veterans may receive comprehensive emergency medical and psychiatric care at any health care facility, including CAHs. They are guaranteed unrestricted walk-in urgent care access anywhere in the country. Veterans can also obtain outpatient and inpatient services through VCCP clinicians when they meet the following established access criteria: VA facilities exceed 30-minute travel times for primary and mental health services or 60 minutes for specialty care, or when appointment wait times surpass 20 days for primary/mental health care or 28 days for specialty services. Nearly half of covered veterans used this option in FY2023. 

This bill does more than upend the established paradigm of VCCP eligibility requirements: it also eliminates the critical function of utilization review and accountability. Its passage would establish a dangerous precedent. By eliminating drive time and wait time eligibility standards and simultaneously removing VA’s ability to manage use, the bill generates powerful political momentum to extend identical provisions to all enrolled veterans. Furthermore, this legislation could specifically precipitate the downsizing or closure of VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in areas served by CAHs. North Dakota, for example, operates 5 CBOCs that could be affected. Veterans who live in rural areas within the standard 30- to 60-minute drive time of a CBOC and can secure appointments within the established 20- to 28-day timeframes would no longer be subject to the same eligibility criteria that govern all covered veterans.

The Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI) has serious reservations about legislation that eliminates VA's indispensable authorization and referral functions for supplemental private care. Founded in 2016, the VHPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to analyzing health care, disability compensation, and benefits for US veterans and their families. It provides fact-based research to educate the public and improve care quality both within and outside the VA.

New initiatives threaten to drastically reduce veterans' health and disability benefits through staff cuts and service reductions that will limit access to earned benefits and life-sustaining health care. Attacks against the VA also threaten to erode the training that produces new cohorts of health professionals, dramatically exacerbating the nation’s already dire shortages of physicians, nurses, psychologists and social workers. 

VHPI’s coverage of Veterans Health Administration downsizing within rural health care provides important context. Starting with a comprehensive 15-page white paper published in 2024, VHPI has consistently highlighted how veterans living in rural communities face the same health care access challenges as all rural Americans—living in regions with severe shortages of health care facilities, professionals, and support staff. Lawmakers who assume veterans living in rural areas will experience shorter wait times and drive distances through private sector care fundamentally misunderstand these systemic issues 

VHPI is committed to rigorously scrutinize policies that may compromise high quality care for veterans, especially those living in rural areas.  The organization recently examined the flawed assumptions underlying these misguided policies. On August 12, VHPI released an in-depth analysis of private sector  clinicians’ capacity to care for veterans in across all 50 states titled “Veterans’ Health Care Choice—Myth or Reality? A State- by- State Reality Check of the False Promise of VA Privatization.” This analysis revealed that, in most states, and in all rural states, the private sector system was struggling to meet even the basic needs of non-veterans. As one long time VA expert stated, to imagine that the system could absorb an influx of millions of veterans – particularly when new cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare funding are implemented, is “delusional.”

Russell Lemle and Suzanne Gordon are senior policy analysts at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. Suzanne Gordon is author of Wounds of War.

The Critical Access for Veterans Care Act, S.1868, introduced in May by Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT), would fundamentally reshape how veterans living in rural communities access private health care. The legislation establishes a new paradigm impacting veterans enrolled in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care who reside within 35 miles of any Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-designated Critical Access Hospital (CAH) or affiliated clinic. The bill would allow veterans unprecedented autonomy to self-refer directly to these facilities.

However, despite its seemingly straightforward title, the bill will not expedite care delivery, reduce travel burdens, or enhance network critical care capacity for veterans living in rural areas. Instead, the bill would further privatize veteran health care delivery by permitting veterans within this geographic radius to independently pursue care at CAHs and clinics without prior authorization. The legislation would establish a parallel referral system that erodes the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) eligibility determinations that were meticulously developed under the VA MISSION Act of 2018.

Some lawmakers have repeatedly pushed to eliminate VA's authorization role in the past 6 years, seeking to grant unrestricted private sector access to various veteran populations, particularly those requiring mental health services. Sponsors of the current bill are explicitly pursuing this same objective, characterizing VA authorization as an “unnecessary roadblock” that should be removed. However, this characterization misrepresents the actual function and value of the authorization process.

Over the past 6 years, provisions in the VA MISSION Act and other laws for predetermining veteran eligibility for private care have provided veterans with broad access while maintaining oversight and accountability. Enrolled veterans may receive comprehensive emergency medical and psychiatric care at any health care facility, including CAHs. They are guaranteed unrestricted walk-in urgent care access anywhere in the country. Veterans can also obtain outpatient and inpatient services through VCCP clinicians when they meet the following established access criteria: VA facilities exceed 30-minute travel times for primary and mental health services or 60 minutes for specialty care, or when appointment wait times surpass 20 days for primary/mental health care or 28 days for specialty services. Nearly half of covered veterans used this option in FY2023. 

This bill does more than upend the established paradigm of VCCP eligibility requirements: it also eliminates the critical function of utilization review and accountability. Its passage would establish a dangerous precedent. By eliminating drive time and wait time eligibility standards and simultaneously removing VA’s ability to manage use, the bill generates powerful political momentum to extend identical provisions to all enrolled veterans. Furthermore, this legislation could specifically precipitate the downsizing or closure of VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in areas served by CAHs. North Dakota, for example, operates 5 CBOCs that could be affected. Veterans who live in rural areas within the standard 30- to 60-minute drive time of a CBOC and can secure appointments within the established 20- to 28-day timeframes would no longer be subject to the same eligibility criteria that govern all covered veterans.

The Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI) has serious reservations about legislation that eliminates VA's indispensable authorization and referral functions for supplemental private care. Founded in 2016, the VHPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to analyzing health care, disability compensation, and benefits for US veterans and their families. It provides fact-based research to educate the public and improve care quality both within and outside the VA.

New initiatives threaten to drastically reduce veterans' health and disability benefits through staff cuts and service reductions that will limit access to earned benefits and life-sustaining health care. Attacks against the VA also threaten to erode the training that produces new cohorts of health professionals, dramatically exacerbating the nation’s already dire shortages of physicians, nurses, psychologists and social workers. 

VHPI’s coverage of Veterans Health Administration downsizing within rural health care provides important context. Starting with a comprehensive 15-page white paper published in 2024, VHPI has consistently highlighted how veterans living in rural communities face the same health care access challenges as all rural Americans—living in regions with severe shortages of health care facilities, professionals, and support staff. Lawmakers who assume veterans living in rural areas will experience shorter wait times and drive distances through private sector care fundamentally misunderstand these systemic issues 

VHPI is committed to rigorously scrutinize policies that may compromise high quality care for veterans, especially those living in rural areas.  The organization recently examined the flawed assumptions underlying these misguided policies. On August 12, VHPI released an in-depth analysis of private sector  clinicians’ capacity to care for veterans in across all 50 states titled “Veterans’ Health Care Choice—Myth or Reality? A State- by- State Reality Check of the False Promise of VA Privatization.” This analysis revealed that, in most states, and in all rural states, the private sector system was struggling to meet even the basic needs of non-veterans. As one long time VA expert stated, to imagine that the system could absorb an influx of millions of veterans – particularly when new cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare funding are implemented, is “delusional.”

Russell Lemle and Suzanne Gordon are senior policy analysts at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. Suzanne Gordon is author of Wounds of War.

Elevated tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A (tTG-IgA) in isolation is insufficient to diagnose celiac disease in children, a large pediatric cohort study in North America found. 

Because tTG-IgA assay performance varied widely across labs, diagnostic confirmation by a specialist is essential before gluten-targeted dietary changes are made, according to Denis Chang, MD, MS, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Nutrition at Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reported in Pediatrics.

“Currently, small intestinal biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosing pediatric celiac disease, but recent European diagnostic criteria allow a nonbiopsy pathway for serologic diagnosis,” Chang told GI & Heaptology News. The European guidelines allow this pathway when a very high tTG-IgA is confirmed by a positive endomysial IgA antibody (EMA) in a second blood sample.

Those guidelines have not been adopted on this continent, however, so Chang’s group assessed the positive predictive value (PPV) of the North American tTG-IgA assay to identify histologic findings of celiac disease.

Another issue is the absence of a universal standard threshold across labs for a high antibody value. “Common assays used in North America differ in performance, and there are not many large multicenter studies looking at this issue. Hopefully, a standard will be developed in the near future. Before this serologic pathway can enter into our guidelines, this question needs to be addressed.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter retrospective study by Dr. Chang’s team looked at patients younger than 18 years from three pediatric hospitals in Canada and nine in the US who had an elevated tTG-IgA within 6 months of an esophagogastroduodenoscopy from January 2016 to December 2021. Biopsy-confirmed celiac disease was determined by the presence of intraepithelial lymphocytosis and villous atrophy. The primary outcomes were the PPV of an elevated tTG-IgA and a tTG-IgA at least 10 times the upper limit of normal (10x ULN).

The study cohort included 4019 children (63.3% female, 9% with type 1 diabetes, and 2% with Down syndrome). Histologic findings were consistent with celiac disease for 3321 children, for a PPV of 82.6% (95% CI, 81.4%-83.8%).

Among the 1739 (43.2%) children with tTG-IgA of at least 10x ULN, 1651 had biopsy-confirmed celiac disease, for a PPV 10x ULN of 94.9% (95% CI, 93.8%-95.9%). About 5% (n = 88) of positive-testing children did not have histologic findings of celiac disease, including 2% (n = 41) with normal histology.

Diagnostic accuracy of tTG-IgA varied widely among the assays used in North America, with a PPV range of 71.5%-88.8% and a PPV 10x ULN range of 89.3%-97.3%. Assays did not perform as well in children with type 1 diabetes: PPV 10x ULN of 89% (95% CI, 83.5%-92.8%).

In other notable findings, the EMA blood test only marginally improved specificity, as 76% of children without celiac disease, but with a tTG-IgA of at least 10x ULN had a positive EMA in the same sample.

While the study lends credence to the notion that a highly positive tTG-IgA correlates with enteropathy in most children, the 1 in 20 with a tTG-IgA greater than 10x ULN who did not have histologic findings diagnostic of celiac disease cannot be ignored. “This included 2% who had normal small intestinal biopsies on a gluten-containing unrestricted diet, highlighting the limitations of making a celiac disease diagnosis based solely upon a single, highly positive tTG-IgA level,” Chang and colleagues wrote.

Does this mean that substantial numbers of children with suspected celiac disease are being unnecessarily placed on gluten-restricted diets to no avail? “That’s a good question, but our retrospective data do not provide an answer to that,” Chang said. And what causes elevated autoantibodies in children who are not diagnosed with celiac disease? “That is also a question that will require further research,” he said.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Supriya Nair, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, called it “very interesting because it highlights for primary care physicians that we may need endoscopic evaluation more than we thought.” This is particularly true given the lack of standardized laboratory values noted in the study.

Nair said that some children with high seromarker levels but no discernible lesions may develop celiac disease later. “It may be that the markers are not yet causing inflammation in the bowel. These patients must be monitored to see if levels stay high or come down.”

In her practice, she has seen some children who have been put on gluten-free diets prematurely. “But it’s very important to get an accurate, official confirmation with endoscopy because of the ramifications of a celiac diagnosis,” she said. “This is a lifelong condition, and the diet is not easy to follow, especially in North America.” And for children, especially, there are restrictive social impacts and the constant need to be aware of what they’re eating and the danger of cross-contamination in foods, she said.

Chang hopes these data will be pivotal in helping medical societies develop new North American guidelines. In the meantime, pediatricians and primary doctors need to be aware that a high number on a tTG-IgA test does not always mean the presence of celiac disease, although it could be a harbinger of its future development. “Further confirmation by a specialist is essential.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Chang and Nair reported having no competing interests. Several study authors reported receiving research support from and serving as consultants or members of data safety monitoring boards for pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Elevated tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A (tTG-IgA) in isolation is insufficient to diagnose celiac disease in children, a large pediatric cohort study in North America found. 

Because tTG-IgA assay performance varied widely across labs, diagnostic confirmation by a specialist is essential before gluten-targeted dietary changes are made, according to Denis Chang, MD, MS, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Nutrition at Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reported in Pediatrics.

“Currently, small intestinal biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosing pediatric celiac disease, but recent European diagnostic criteria allow a nonbiopsy pathway for serologic diagnosis,” Chang told GI & Heaptology News. The European guidelines allow this pathway when a very high tTG-IgA is confirmed by a positive endomysial IgA antibody (EMA) in a second blood sample.

Those guidelines have not been adopted on this continent, however, so Chang’s group assessed the positive predictive value (PPV) of the North American tTG-IgA assay to identify histologic findings of celiac disease.

Another issue is the absence of a universal standard threshold across labs for a high antibody value. “Common assays used in North America differ in performance, and there are not many large multicenter studies looking at this issue. Hopefully, a standard will be developed in the near future. Before this serologic pathway can enter into our guidelines, this question needs to be addressed.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter retrospective study by Dr. Chang’s team looked at patients younger than 18 years from three pediatric hospitals in Canada and nine in the US who had an elevated tTG-IgA within 6 months of an esophagogastroduodenoscopy from January 2016 to December 2021. Biopsy-confirmed celiac disease was determined by the presence of intraepithelial lymphocytosis and villous atrophy. The primary outcomes were the PPV of an elevated tTG-IgA and a tTG-IgA at least 10 times the upper limit of normal (10x ULN).

The study cohort included 4019 children (63.3% female, 9% with type 1 diabetes, and 2% with Down syndrome). Histologic findings were consistent with celiac disease for 3321 children, for a PPV of 82.6% (95% CI, 81.4%-83.8%).

Among the 1739 (43.2%) children with tTG-IgA of at least 10x ULN, 1651 had biopsy-confirmed celiac disease, for a PPV 10x ULN of 94.9% (95% CI, 93.8%-95.9%). About 5% (n = 88) of positive-testing children did not have histologic findings of celiac disease, including 2% (n = 41) with normal histology.

Diagnostic accuracy of tTG-IgA varied widely among the assays used in North America, with a PPV range of 71.5%-88.8% and a PPV 10x ULN range of 89.3%-97.3%. Assays did not perform as well in children with type 1 diabetes: PPV 10x ULN of 89% (95% CI, 83.5%-92.8%).

In other notable findings, the EMA blood test only marginally improved specificity, as 76% of children without celiac disease, but with a tTG-IgA of at least 10x ULN had a positive EMA in the same sample.

While the study lends credence to the notion that a highly positive tTG-IgA correlates with enteropathy in most children, the 1 in 20 with a tTG-IgA greater than 10x ULN who did not have histologic findings diagnostic of celiac disease cannot be ignored. “This included 2% who had normal small intestinal biopsies on a gluten-containing unrestricted diet, highlighting the limitations of making a celiac disease diagnosis based solely upon a single, highly positive tTG-IgA level,” Chang and colleagues wrote.

Does this mean that substantial numbers of children with suspected celiac disease are being unnecessarily placed on gluten-restricted diets to no avail? “That’s a good question, but our retrospective data do not provide an answer to that,” Chang said. And what causes elevated autoantibodies in children who are not diagnosed with celiac disease? “That is also a question that will require further research,” he said.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Supriya Nair, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, called it “very interesting because it highlights for primary care physicians that we may need endoscopic evaluation more than we thought.” This is particularly true given the lack of standardized laboratory values noted in the study.

Nair said that some children with high seromarker levels but no discernible lesions may develop celiac disease later. “It may be that the markers are not yet causing inflammation in the bowel. These patients must be monitored to see if levels stay high or come down.”

In her practice, she has seen some children who have been put on gluten-free diets prematurely. “But it’s very important to get an accurate, official confirmation with endoscopy because of the ramifications of a celiac diagnosis,” she said. “This is a lifelong condition, and the diet is not easy to follow, especially in North America.” And for children, especially, there are restrictive social impacts and the constant need to be aware of what they’re eating and the danger of cross-contamination in foods, she said.

Chang hopes these data will be pivotal in helping medical societies develop new North American guidelines. In the meantime, pediatricians and primary doctors need to be aware that a high number on a tTG-IgA test does not always mean the presence of celiac disease, although it could be a harbinger of its future development. “Further confirmation by a specialist is essential.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Chang and Nair reported having no competing interests. Several study authors reported receiving research support from and serving as consultants or members of data safety monitoring boards for pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Elevated tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A (tTG-IgA) in isolation is insufficient to diagnose celiac disease in children, a large pediatric cohort study in North America found. 

Because tTG-IgA assay performance varied widely across labs, diagnostic confirmation by a specialist is essential before gluten-targeted dietary changes are made, according to Denis Chang, MD, MS, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Nutrition at Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reported in Pediatrics.

“Currently, small intestinal biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosing pediatric celiac disease, but recent European diagnostic criteria allow a nonbiopsy pathway for serologic diagnosis,” Chang told GI & Heaptology News. The European guidelines allow this pathway when a very high tTG-IgA is confirmed by a positive endomysial IgA antibody (EMA) in a second blood sample.

Those guidelines have not been adopted on this continent, however, so Chang’s group assessed the positive predictive value (PPV) of the North American tTG-IgA assay to identify histologic findings of celiac disease.

Another issue is the absence of a universal standard threshold across labs for a high antibody value. “Common assays used in North America differ in performance, and there are not many large multicenter studies looking at this issue. Hopefully, a standard will be developed in the near future. Before this serologic pathway can enter into our guidelines, this question needs to be addressed.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter retrospective study by Dr. Chang’s team looked at patients younger than 18 years from three pediatric hospitals in Canada and nine in the US who had an elevated tTG-IgA within 6 months of an esophagogastroduodenoscopy from January 2016 to December 2021. Biopsy-confirmed celiac disease was determined by the presence of intraepithelial lymphocytosis and villous atrophy. The primary outcomes were the PPV of an elevated tTG-IgA and a tTG-IgA at least 10 times the upper limit of normal (10x ULN).

The study cohort included 4019 children (63.3% female, 9% with type 1 diabetes, and 2% with Down syndrome). Histologic findings were consistent with celiac disease for 3321 children, for a PPV of 82.6% (95% CI, 81.4%-83.8%).

Among the 1739 (43.2%) children with tTG-IgA of at least 10x ULN, 1651 had biopsy-confirmed celiac disease, for a PPV 10x ULN of 94.9% (95% CI, 93.8%-95.9%). About 5% (n = 88) of positive-testing children did not have histologic findings of celiac disease, including 2% (n = 41) with normal histology.

Diagnostic accuracy of tTG-IgA varied widely among the assays used in North America, with a PPV range of 71.5%-88.8% and a PPV 10x ULN range of 89.3%-97.3%. Assays did not perform as well in children with type 1 diabetes: PPV 10x ULN of 89% (95% CI, 83.5%-92.8%).

In other notable findings, the EMA blood test only marginally improved specificity, as 76% of children without celiac disease, but with a tTG-IgA of at least 10x ULN had a positive EMA in the same sample.

While the study lends credence to the notion that a highly positive tTG-IgA correlates with enteropathy in most children, the 1 in 20 with a tTG-IgA greater than 10x ULN who did not have histologic findings diagnostic of celiac disease cannot be ignored. “This included 2% who had normal small intestinal biopsies on a gluten-containing unrestricted diet, highlighting the limitations of making a celiac disease diagnosis based solely upon a single, highly positive tTG-IgA level,” Chang and colleagues wrote.

Does this mean that substantial numbers of children with suspected celiac disease are being unnecessarily placed on gluten-restricted diets to no avail? “That’s a good question, but our retrospective data do not provide an answer to that,” Chang said. And what causes elevated autoantibodies in children who are not diagnosed with celiac disease? “That is also a question that will require further research,” he said.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Supriya Nair, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, called it “very interesting because it highlights for primary care physicians that we may need endoscopic evaluation more than we thought.” This is particularly true given the lack of standardized laboratory values noted in the study.

Nair said that some children with high seromarker levels but no discernible lesions may develop celiac disease later. “It may be that the markers are not yet causing inflammation in the bowel. These patients must be monitored to see if levels stay high or come down.”

In her practice, she has seen some children who have been put on gluten-free diets prematurely. “But it’s very important to get an accurate, official confirmation with endoscopy because of the ramifications of a celiac diagnosis,” she said. “This is a lifelong condition, and the diet is not easy to follow, especially in North America.” And for children, especially, there are restrictive social impacts and the constant need to be aware of what they’re eating and the danger of cross-contamination in foods, she said.

Chang hopes these data will be pivotal in helping medical societies develop new North American guidelines. In the meantime, pediatricians and primary doctors need to be aware that a high number on a tTG-IgA test does not always mean the presence of celiac disease, although it could be a harbinger of its future development. “Further confirmation by a specialist is essential.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Chang and Nair reported having no competing interests. Several study authors reported receiving research support from and serving as consultants or members of data safety monitoring boards for pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.