News

About 7 of every 10 veterans who die by suicide involve the use of a firearm. A reason for this high rate is access, as half of veterans report owning ≥ 1 personal firearms. Of those individuals, more than half report storing firearms loaded and/or unsecured and one-third of veterans who store their firearms loaded and unlocked do not own a lockbox or safe. 

Suicide death prevention has improved as firearms have become more difficult to obtain. That’s why Navy veteran Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), former FBI Special Agent and federal prosecutor Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) have teamed up to introduce the Saving Our Veterans Lives Act of 2024. Under the proposed act, any veteran would be able to get a free lockbox from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Suicidal crises can be brief. According to the VA, if a person experiencing a suicidal crisis can’t access the method they planned to use, they generally do not seek out other lethal means. Lockboxes are a way of “putting space between thought and trigger,” the VA said.

The VA Suicide Prevention Program distributes free firearm cable locks to any veteran who requests one. However, many veterans favor lockboxes and safes to secure their guns. A VA pilot program offers free lockboxes to veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration who are at an elevated risk for suicide. The program is set to launch in late 2024 and is a collaboration between the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, VA National Prosthetics Service, and VA Office of Suicide Prevention.

The proposed bill would make the lockboxes (which typically cost between $25 and $350) free to any veteran, regardless of VA enrollment status or diagnosis. It ensures “sufficient funding for many tens of thousands of lockboxes to be distributed.” The bill would also direct the VA to create a public education campaign on the availability of lockboxes and the importance of secure firearm storage in suicide prevention.

“The alarming and tragic reality is that our veterans face a suicide rate 57% higher than that of civilians,” Rep. Fitzpatrick said. “This commonsense, bipartisan initiative is more than a solution—it's a lifeline.”

The representatives report that the bill has been endorsed by an “unprecedented” number of organizations, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Disabled American Veterans, The American Legion, GIFFORDS, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady, American Psychological Association, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Association of VA Psychologist Leaders.

“Did you know that in some cases only 10 minutes elapse between an individual having suicidal ideation and acting?” American Legion National Commander James LaCoursiere said in the representatives’ press release. “The Saving Our Veterans Lives Act is an important part of preventing suicide as it will provide veterans with the information and means to securely store their firearms to prevent suicide, while still protecting their Second Amendment rights. The Legion commends Rep. Deluzio and his team for bringing this bill forward and for their continued dedication to the welfare of our nation’s veterans.” 

"I hear colleagues all the time talk about veteran suicide," Rep. Deluzio said in an interview with Military.com. "It is a problem in my community. It's a problem across the country. Let's take action. This is a chance where we can do it that I think can cut through the politics that normally divide us on these [gun] issues. And I think the coalition supporting the bill tells you, we've got a path to pass it."

About 7 of every 10 veterans who die by suicide involve the use of a firearm. A reason for this high rate is access, as half of veterans report owning ≥ 1 personal firearms. Of those individuals, more than half report storing firearms loaded and/or unsecured and one-third of veterans who store their firearms loaded and unlocked do not own a lockbox or safe. 

Suicide death prevention has improved as firearms have become more difficult to obtain. That’s why Navy veteran Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), former FBI Special Agent and federal prosecutor Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) have teamed up to introduce the Saving Our Veterans Lives Act of 2024. Under the proposed act, any veteran would be able to get a free lockbox from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Suicidal crises can be brief. According to the VA, if a person experiencing a suicidal crisis can’t access the method they planned to use, they generally do not seek out other lethal means. Lockboxes are a way of “putting space between thought and trigger,” the VA said.

The VA Suicide Prevention Program distributes free firearm cable locks to any veteran who requests one. However, many veterans favor lockboxes and safes to secure their guns. A VA pilot program offers free lockboxes to veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration who are at an elevated risk for suicide. The program is set to launch in late 2024 and is a collaboration between the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, VA National Prosthetics Service, and VA Office of Suicide Prevention.

The proposed bill would make the lockboxes (which typically cost between $25 and $350) free to any veteran, regardless of VA enrollment status or diagnosis. It ensures “sufficient funding for many tens of thousands of lockboxes to be distributed.” The bill would also direct the VA to create a public education campaign on the availability of lockboxes and the importance of secure firearm storage in suicide prevention.

“The alarming and tragic reality is that our veterans face a suicide rate 57% higher than that of civilians,” Rep. Fitzpatrick said. “This commonsense, bipartisan initiative is more than a solution—it's a lifeline.”

The representatives report that the bill has been endorsed by an “unprecedented” number of organizations, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Disabled American Veterans, The American Legion, GIFFORDS, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady, American Psychological Association, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Association of VA Psychologist Leaders.

“Did you know that in some cases only 10 minutes elapse between an individual having suicidal ideation and acting?” American Legion National Commander James LaCoursiere said in the representatives’ press release. “The Saving Our Veterans Lives Act is an important part of preventing suicide as it will provide veterans with the information and means to securely store their firearms to prevent suicide, while still protecting their Second Amendment rights. The Legion commends Rep. Deluzio and his team for bringing this bill forward and for their continued dedication to the welfare of our nation’s veterans.” 

"I hear colleagues all the time talk about veteran suicide," Rep. Deluzio said in an interview with Military.com. "It is a problem in my community. It's a problem across the country. Let's take action. This is a chance where we can do it that I think can cut through the politics that normally divide us on these [gun] issues. And I think the coalition supporting the bill tells you, we've got a path to pass it."

About 7 of every 10 veterans who die by suicide involve the use of a firearm. A reason for this high rate is access, as half of veterans report owning ≥ 1 personal firearms. Of those individuals, more than half report storing firearms loaded and/or unsecured and one-third of veterans who store their firearms loaded and unlocked do not own a lockbox or safe. 

Suicide death prevention has improved as firearms have become more difficult to obtain. That’s why Navy veteran Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), former FBI Special Agent and federal prosecutor Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) have teamed up to introduce the Saving Our Veterans Lives Act of 2024. Under the proposed act, any veteran would be able to get a free lockbox from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Suicidal crises can be brief. According to the VA, if a person experiencing a suicidal crisis can’t access the method they planned to use, they generally do not seek out other lethal means. Lockboxes are a way of “putting space between thought and trigger,” the VA said.

The VA Suicide Prevention Program distributes free firearm cable locks to any veteran who requests one. However, many veterans favor lockboxes and safes to secure their guns. A VA pilot program offers free lockboxes to veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration who are at an elevated risk for suicide. The program is set to launch in late 2024 and is a collaboration between the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, VA National Prosthetics Service, and VA Office of Suicide Prevention.

The proposed bill would make the lockboxes (which typically cost between $25 and $350) free to any veteran, regardless of VA enrollment status or diagnosis. It ensures “sufficient funding for many tens of thousands of lockboxes to be distributed.” The bill would also direct the VA to create a public education campaign on the availability of lockboxes and the importance of secure firearm storage in suicide prevention.

“The alarming and tragic reality is that our veterans face a suicide rate 57% higher than that of civilians,” Rep. Fitzpatrick said. “This commonsense, bipartisan initiative is more than a solution—it's a lifeline.”

The representatives report that the bill has been endorsed by an “unprecedented” number of organizations, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Disabled American Veterans, The American Legion, GIFFORDS, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady, American Psychological Association, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Association of VA Psychologist Leaders.

“Did you know that in some cases only 10 minutes elapse between an individual having suicidal ideation and acting?” American Legion National Commander James LaCoursiere said in the representatives’ press release. “The Saving Our Veterans Lives Act is an important part of preventing suicide as it will provide veterans with the information and means to securely store their firearms to prevent suicide, while still protecting their Second Amendment rights. The Legion commends Rep. Deluzio and his team for bringing this bill forward and for their continued dedication to the welfare of our nation’s veterans.” 

"I hear colleagues all the time talk about veteran suicide," Rep. Deluzio said in an interview with Military.com. "It is a problem in my community. It's a problem across the country. Let's take action. This is a chance where we can do it that I think can cut through the politics that normally divide us on these [gun] issues. And I think the coalition supporting the bill tells you, we've got a path to pass it."

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Teamwork and transdisciplinary collaboration create an effective system of care for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ensuring improved health both for patients and clinicians alike, said one expert.

In a plenary address at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024, Ileana Howard, MD, medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, said the recently released National Academies report “Living with ALS” cited the Veterans Administration as “a bright spot in the landscape of ALS care due to its interdisciplinary, holistic, and proactive approach to care.”

Since the early 2000s and the publication of several studies linking active military service with ALS, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has opened an ALS registry, a tissue and brain biobank, and in 2008, granted 100% presumptive service connection to any individual who served more than 90 days of active duty and was later diagnosed with ALS, she said.

“We now serve approximately 4000 veterans with ALS across the system, and we count 47 full interdisciplinary clinics within VA across the nation, with ALS coordinators designated for all 170 VA facilities, regardless of whether they had an ALS clinic or not, to serve as a navigator for patients and their families, to identify the closest ALS clinic that could meet their needs.” 
 

Multidisciplinary vs Interdisciplinary

Howard emphasized that transdisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining an effective system. She pointed out that the term “multidisciplinary” is outdated, referring to teams that work independently but in parallel on the same issue.

In contrast, interdisciplinary teams integrate their assessments into a cohesive plan of care, whereas transdisciplinary teams take it further by combining both their assessments and care plans, allowing for greater intentional overlap.

The VA’s ALS handbook lists approximately 20 essential clinicians for a VA ALS clinic, including recreation therapists, assistive technology specialists, and veteran benefit service officers to assist with disability benefits application, among others, she said.

Essential to this collaboration is “role release,” which deliberately blurs the boundaries between disciplines. “The future of our specialty hinges on effective and selfless collaboration,” she said.

Howard encouraged ALS healthcare providers to move away from outdated terminology rooted in hierarchical team models and to break down silos that no longer benefit either the patients or the care teams.

She noted that while teamwork can enhance patient outcomes and overall health, it has also been associated with better health among healthcare providers. It’s well-known, she said, that neurologists and physiatrists are among the specialties with the highest burnout rates, and ALS teams, in particular, experience significant stress and burnout.
 

Better Together

A recent Canadian study on resiliency and burnout in ALS clinics surveyed a wide range of practitioners within ALS centers and found respondents drew resiliency through relationships with patients and colleagues, and that there was a strongly expressed desire for increased resources, team building/debriefing, and formal training in emotional exhaustion and burnout.

“A consistent theme was the lack of adequate allied health support (nursing, social work, occupational therapy) to address the complex needs of patients,” said the report’s senior author Kerri Lynn Schellenberg, MD, medical director of the ALS/Motor Neuron Diseases clinic and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

“The majority of participants felt they would benefit from more consistent team building exercises and debriefing,” noted the authors.

Schellenberg agreed, emphasizing that care teams perform best when there is mutual appreciation and support among members. By learning from one another and reaching consensus together, the care plan benefits from the collective expertise of the team. “We are stronger together,” she said.

Howard and Schellenberg reported no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Teamwork and transdisciplinary collaboration create an effective system of care for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ensuring improved health both for patients and clinicians alike, said one expert.

In a plenary address at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024, Ileana Howard, MD, medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, said the recently released National Academies report “Living with ALS” cited the Veterans Administration as “a bright spot in the landscape of ALS care due to its interdisciplinary, holistic, and proactive approach to care.”

Since the early 2000s and the publication of several studies linking active military service with ALS, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has opened an ALS registry, a tissue and brain biobank, and in 2008, granted 100% presumptive service connection to any individual who served more than 90 days of active duty and was later diagnosed with ALS, she said.

“We now serve approximately 4000 veterans with ALS across the system, and we count 47 full interdisciplinary clinics within VA across the nation, with ALS coordinators designated for all 170 VA facilities, regardless of whether they had an ALS clinic or not, to serve as a navigator for patients and their families, to identify the closest ALS clinic that could meet their needs.” 
 

Multidisciplinary vs Interdisciplinary

Howard emphasized that transdisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining an effective system. She pointed out that the term “multidisciplinary” is outdated, referring to teams that work independently but in parallel on the same issue.

In contrast, interdisciplinary teams integrate their assessments into a cohesive plan of care, whereas transdisciplinary teams take it further by combining both their assessments and care plans, allowing for greater intentional overlap.

The VA’s ALS handbook lists approximately 20 essential clinicians for a VA ALS clinic, including recreation therapists, assistive technology specialists, and veteran benefit service officers to assist with disability benefits application, among others, she said.

Essential to this collaboration is “role release,” which deliberately blurs the boundaries between disciplines. “The future of our specialty hinges on effective and selfless collaboration,” she said.

Howard encouraged ALS healthcare providers to move away from outdated terminology rooted in hierarchical team models and to break down silos that no longer benefit either the patients or the care teams.

She noted that while teamwork can enhance patient outcomes and overall health, it has also been associated with better health among healthcare providers. It’s well-known, she said, that neurologists and physiatrists are among the specialties with the highest burnout rates, and ALS teams, in particular, experience significant stress and burnout.
 

Better Together

A recent Canadian study on resiliency and burnout in ALS clinics surveyed a wide range of practitioners within ALS centers and found respondents drew resiliency through relationships with patients and colleagues, and that there was a strongly expressed desire for increased resources, team building/debriefing, and formal training in emotional exhaustion and burnout.

“A consistent theme was the lack of adequate allied health support (nursing, social work, occupational therapy) to address the complex needs of patients,” said the report’s senior author Kerri Lynn Schellenberg, MD, medical director of the ALS/Motor Neuron Diseases clinic and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

“The majority of participants felt they would benefit from more consistent team building exercises and debriefing,” noted the authors.

Schellenberg agreed, emphasizing that care teams perform best when there is mutual appreciation and support among members. By learning from one another and reaching consensus together, the care plan benefits from the collective expertise of the team. “We are stronger together,” she said.

Howard and Schellenberg reported no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Teamwork and transdisciplinary collaboration create an effective system of care for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ensuring improved health both for patients and clinicians alike, said one expert.

In a plenary address at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024, Ileana Howard, MD, medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, said the recently released National Academies report “Living with ALS” cited the Veterans Administration as “a bright spot in the landscape of ALS care due to its interdisciplinary, holistic, and proactive approach to care.”

Since the early 2000s and the publication of several studies linking active military service with ALS, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has opened an ALS registry, a tissue and brain biobank, and in 2008, granted 100% presumptive service connection to any individual who served more than 90 days of active duty and was later diagnosed with ALS, she said.

“We now serve approximately 4000 veterans with ALS across the system, and we count 47 full interdisciplinary clinics within VA across the nation, with ALS coordinators designated for all 170 VA facilities, regardless of whether they had an ALS clinic or not, to serve as a navigator for patients and their families, to identify the closest ALS clinic that could meet their needs.” 
 

Multidisciplinary vs Interdisciplinary

Howard emphasized that transdisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining an effective system. She pointed out that the term “multidisciplinary” is outdated, referring to teams that work independently but in parallel on the same issue.

In contrast, interdisciplinary teams integrate their assessments into a cohesive plan of care, whereas transdisciplinary teams take it further by combining both their assessments and care plans, allowing for greater intentional overlap.

The VA’s ALS handbook lists approximately 20 essential clinicians for a VA ALS clinic, including recreation therapists, assistive technology specialists, and veteran benefit service officers to assist with disability benefits application, among others, she said.

Essential to this collaboration is “role release,” which deliberately blurs the boundaries between disciplines. “The future of our specialty hinges on effective and selfless collaboration,” she said.

Howard encouraged ALS healthcare providers to move away from outdated terminology rooted in hierarchical team models and to break down silos that no longer benefit either the patients or the care teams.

She noted that while teamwork can enhance patient outcomes and overall health, it has also been associated with better health among healthcare providers. It’s well-known, she said, that neurologists and physiatrists are among the specialties with the highest burnout rates, and ALS teams, in particular, experience significant stress and burnout.
 

Better Together

A recent Canadian study on resiliency and burnout in ALS clinics surveyed a wide range of practitioners within ALS centers and found respondents drew resiliency through relationships with patients and colleagues, and that there was a strongly expressed desire for increased resources, team building/debriefing, and formal training in emotional exhaustion and burnout.

“A consistent theme was the lack of adequate allied health support (nursing, social work, occupational therapy) to address the complex needs of patients,” said the report’s senior author Kerri Lynn Schellenberg, MD, medical director of the ALS/Motor Neuron Diseases clinic and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

“The majority of participants felt they would benefit from more consistent team building exercises and debriefing,” noted the authors.

Schellenberg agreed, emphasizing that care teams perform best when there is mutual appreciation and support among members. By learning from one another and reaching consensus together, the care plan benefits from the collective expertise of the team. “We are stronger together,” she said.

Howard and Schellenberg reported no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.

The recommendation would leave the choice of PCV up to the clinician. The updated language calls for a single dose of PCV (which could be PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) for all adults aged 50 years or older; adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions (for whom PCV is already recommended) could receive the newly approved PCV21 as an option.

The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.

Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.

Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.

As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.

Support Not Universal

A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.

Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.

A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.

Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.

An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.

Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
 

Half a Million Real-World Participants

Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.

The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.

HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.

Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.

Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
 

Disparities Persist

While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”

“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
 

What Programs Are Helping?

Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”

The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.

Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
 

Large Study With Recent Data

“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”

Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.

Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.

“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
 

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

LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.

An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.

Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
 

Half a Million Real-World Participants

Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.

The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.

HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.

Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.

Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
 

Disparities Persist

While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”

“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
 

What Programs Are Helping?

Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”

The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.

Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
 

Large Study With Recent Data

“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”

Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.

Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.

“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
 

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

LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.

An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.

Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
 

Half a Million Real-World Participants

Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.

The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.

HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.

Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.

Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
 

Disparities Persist

While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”

“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
 

What Programs Are Helping?

Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”

The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.

Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
 

Large Study With Recent Data

“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”

Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.

Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.

“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
 

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

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

It has been 24 years since a pharmaceutical was last approved for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The condition is notoriously difficult to treat, with up to 40% patients finding no relief from symptoms through psychotherapy or current medications.

Many clinicians, advocates, and patients had pinned their hopes on the psychedelic drug midomafetamine with assisted therapy (MDMA-AT). However, in August, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected it. At this point, it’s unclear when the therapy will be available, if ever.

“Not getting the FDA approval of any drug at this point is a setback for the field,” Lori Davis, MD, a senior research psychiatrist at the Birmingham Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System in Birmingham, Alabama, told Medscape Medical News.

Having an FDA-approved product would have helped increase public awareness of PTSD and driven interest in developing new therapies, said Davis, who is also adjunct professor of psychiatry at the Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

A Treatable Condition

So with MDMA-AT off the table, where does the field go next? 

A public meeting in September hosted by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA in sought to answer that question. Agency officials joined representatives from the Department of Defense (DoD) and VA, patients, advocates, and industry representatives to discuss the current treatment landscape and what can be done to accelerate development of PTSD treatment.

Despite the common belief that PTSD is intractable, it “is a treatable condition,” Paula P. Schnurr, PhD, executive director of the VA National Center for PTSD, said at the meeting.

“There are effective treatments that work well for a lot of people, although not everyone has a satisfactory response,” she added.

The most effective psychotherapies are “trauma-focused,” and include cognitive processing therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and prolonged exposure, according to the VA National Center for PTSD.

Three drugs have been approved by the FDA for PTSD: Venlafaxine (Effexor) in 1993, sertraline (Zoloft) in 1999, and paroxetine (Paxil) in 2000.

However, as the September meeting demonstrated, more therapies are needed.

“It’s clear to FDA and the federal government at large that there is an unmet need for safe and effective therapies to treat PTSD,” Bernard Fischer, MD, deputy director of the Division of Psychiatry in the Office of New Drugs at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said at the meeting.

There is no shortage of research, Fischer added. Nearly 500 trials focused on PTSD are listed on clinicaltrials.gov are recruiting participants now or plan to soon.

Unsurprisingly, one of the primary drivers of PTSD therapeutics research is the VA. About 14% of the 5.7 million veterans who received care through the VA in 2023 had a diagnosis of PTSD.

“The US military is currently losing thousands of service members each year to PTSD- related disability discharges,” US Army Maj. Aaron Wolfgang, MD, a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, said at the meeting. Only about 12%-20% of patients achieve remission with conventional therapies, added Wolfgang, who also is an assistant professor at the Uniformed Services University.

“For these reasons, establishing better treatments for PTSD is not only a matter of humanitarianism but also a pressing matter of national security,” he said.

The VA has committed at least $230 million to more than 140 active research projects in PTSD, Miriam J. Smyth, PhD, acting director of the clinical science, research and development service at the VA, said at the Reagan-Udall meeting.

One of the VA projects is the PTSD psychopharmacology initiative, which began in 2017 and now has 14 active clinical trials, said Smyth, who is also acting director for brain behavior and mental health at the VA. The first study should be finished by 2025.

The Million Veteran Program, with more than 1 million enrollees, has led to the discovery of genes related to re-experiencing traumatic memories and has confirmed that both PTSD and traumatic brain injury are risk factors for dementia, Smyth said.

The DoD has created a novel platform that establishes a common infrastructure for testing multiple drugs, called M-PACT. The platform allows sharing of placebo data across treatment arms. Drugs cycle off the platform if evidence indicates probability of success or failure.

Four trials are actively recruiting veterans and current service members. One is looking at vilazodone, approved in 2011 for major depressive disorder. It is being compared with placebo and fluoxetine in a trial that is currently recruiting.

Another trial will study daridorexant (sold as Quviviq), an orexin receptor antagonist, against placebo. The FDA approved daridorexant in 2022 as an insomnia treatment. A core issue in PTSD is sleep disruption, noted Davis.
 

New Therapies on the Way

Separately, Davis and colleagues are also studying methylphenidate, the stimulant used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. It may help with neurocognitive complaints and reduce PTSD symptoms, said Davis.

Because it is generic, few pharmaceutical manufacturers are likely to test it for PTSD, she said. But eventually, their work may lead a company to test newer stimulants for PTSD, she said.

Another potential therapeutic, BNC210, received Fast Track designation for PTSD from the FDA in 2019. Bionomics Limited in Australia will soon launch phase 3 trials of the investigational oral drug, which is a negative allosteric modulator of the alpha-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. In late July, the company announced “ favorable feedback” from the agency on its phase 2 study, which led to the decision to move forward with larger trials.

Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital have just reported that they may have found a target within the brain that will allow for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to ameliorate PTSD symptoms. They published results of a mapping effort in Nature Neuroscience and reported on one patient who had improved symptoms after receiving TMS for severe PTSD.

But perhaps one of the most promising treatments is a combination of sertraline and the new psychiatric medication brexpiprazole.

Brexpiprazole was developed by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and approved in the United States in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for major depressive disorder and as a treatment for schizophrenia. In 2023, the FDA approved it for Alzheimer’s-related agitation. However, according to Otsuka, its mechanism of action is unknown.

Its efficacy may be mediated through a combination of partial agonist activity at serotonin 5-HT1A and dopamine D2 receptors, antagonist activity at serotonin 5-HT2A receptors, as well as antagonism of alpha-1B/2C receptors, said the company.

“It is the combination, rather than either alone, that’s going to have that broad synergistic pharmacology that is obviously potent for ameliorating the symptoms of PTSD,” said Davis, who has received consulting fees from Otsuka. “That’s an exciting development.”

Otsuka and partner Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals reported results in May from the companies’ phase 2 and 3 randomized clinical trials. The therapy achieved a statistically significant reduction (P <.05) in PTSD symptoms compared with sertraline plus placebo. This was without any supplemental psychotherapy.

The FDA accepted the companies’ new drug application in June and is expected to make a decision on approval in February 2025.
 

The Potential of Psychedelics

Though Lykos Therapeutics may have to go back to the drawing board on its MDMA-AT, psychedelics still have potential as PTSD therapies, Smyth said, who added that the VA is continuing to encourage study of MDMA and other psychedelic agents.

The VA issued a call for proposals for research on psychedelics in January, focused on MDMA or psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy. The administration received the first wave of applications early in the summer.

Scientific peer review panels made up of research experts from within and outside the VA have reviewed the applications and funding announcements are expected this fall, Smyth said.

Wolfgang, the Army psychiatrist, said, “Under the psychedelic treatment research clinical trial award, we welcome investigators to apply to what we anticipate will usher in a new era of innovation and hope for service members and their families who need it the most.”

Psychedelic studies are also proceeding without VA funding, as they have for years, when most of the trials were backed by universities or foundations or other private money. Johns Hopkins University is recruiting for a study in which patients would receive psilocybin along with trauma-focused psychotherapy, as is Ohio State University.

London-based Compass Pathways said in May that it successfully completed a phase 2 trial of Comp360, its synthetic psilocybin, in PTSD. The company has started a phase 3 study in treatment-resistant depression but has not given any further updates on PTSD.

Davis said that she believes that the FDA’s rejection of Lykos won’t lead to a shutdown of exploration of psychedelics.

“I think it informs these designs going forward, but it doesn’t eliminate that whole field of research,” she said.

Davis reported receiving consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Otsuka and research funding from Alkermes, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the VA. Schnurr, Fischer, Smyth, and Wolfgang reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It has been 24 years since a pharmaceutical was last approved for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The condition is notoriously difficult to treat, with up to 40% patients finding no relief from symptoms through psychotherapy or current medications.

Many clinicians, advocates, and patients had pinned their hopes on the psychedelic drug midomafetamine with assisted therapy (MDMA-AT). However, in August, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected it. At this point, it’s unclear when the therapy will be available, if ever.

“Not getting the FDA approval of any drug at this point is a setback for the field,” Lori Davis, MD, a senior research psychiatrist at the Birmingham Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System in Birmingham, Alabama, told Medscape Medical News.

Having an FDA-approved product would have helped increase public awareness of PTSD and driven interest in developing new therapies, said Davis, who is also adjunct professor of psychiatry at the Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

A Treatable Condition

So with MDMA-AT off the table, where does the field go next? 

A public meeting in September hosted by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA in sought to answer that question. Agency officials joined representatives from the Department of Defense (DoD) and VA, patients, advocates, and industry representatives to discuss the current treatment landscape and what can be done to accelerate development of PTSD treatment.

Despite the common belief that PTSD is intractable, it “is a treatable condition,” Paula P. Schnurr, PhD, executive director of the VA National Center for PTSD, said at the meeting.

“There are effective treatments that work well for a lot of people, although not everyone has a satisfactory response,” she added.

The most effective psychotherapies are “trauma-focused,” and include cognitive processing therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and prolonged exposure, according to the VA National Center for PTSD.

Three drugs have been approved by the FDA for PTSD: Venlafaxine (Effexor) in 1993, sertraline (Zoloft) in 1999, and paroxetine (Paxil) in 2000.

However, as the September meeting demonstrated, more therapies are needed.

“It’s clear to FDA and the federal government at large that there is an unmet need for safe and effective therapies to treat PTSD,” Bernard Fischer, MD, deputy director of the Division of Psychiatry in the Office of New Drugs at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said at the meeting.

There is no shortage of research, Fischer added. Nearly 500 trials focused on PTSD are listed on clinicaltrials.gov are recruiting participants now or plan to soon.

Unsurprisingly, one of the primary drivers of PTSD therapeutics research is the VA. About 14% of the 5.7 million veterans who received care through the VA in 2023 had a diagnosis of PTSD.

“The US military is currently losing thousands of service members each year to PTSD- related disability discharges,” US Army Maj. Aaron Wolfgang, MD, a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, said at the meeting. Only about 12%-20% of patients achieve remission with conventional therapies, added Wolfgang, who also is an assistant professor at the Uniformed Services University.

“For these reasons, establishing better treatments for PTSD is not only a matter of humanitarianism but also a pressing matter of national security,” he said.

The VA has committed at least $230 million to more than 140 active research projects in PTSD, Miriam J. Smyth, PhD, acting director of the clinical science, research and development service at the VA, said at the Reagan-Udall meeting.

One of the VA projects is the PTSD psychopharmacology initiative, which began in 2017 and now has 14 active clinical trials, said Smyth, who is also acting director for brain behavior and mental health at the VA. The first study should be finished by 2025.

The Million Veteran Program, with more than 1 million enrollees, has led to the discovery of genes related to re-experiencing traumatic memories and has confirmed that both PTSD and traumatic brain injury are risk factors for dementia, Smyth said.

The DoD has created a novel platform that establishes a common infrastructure for testing multiple drugs, called M-PACT. The platform allows sharing of placebo data across treatment arms. Drugs cycle off the platform if evidence indicates probability of success or failure.

Four trials are actively recruiting veterans and current service members. One is looking at vilazodone, approved in 2011 for major depressive disorder. It is being compared with placebo and fluoxetine in a trial that is currently recruiting.

Another trial will study daridorexant (sold as Quviviq), an orexin receptor antagonist, against placebo. The FDA approved daridorexant in 2022 as an insomnia treatment. A core issue in PTSD is sleep disruption, noted Davis.
 

New Therapies on the Way

Separately, Davis and colleagues are also studying methylphenidate, the stimulant used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. It may help with neurocognitive complaints and reduce PTSD symptoms, said Davis.

Because it is generic, few pharmaceutical manufacturers are likely to test it for PTSD, she said. But eventually, their work may lead a company to test newer stimulants for PTSD, she said.

Another potential therapeutic, BNC210, received Fast Track designation for PTSD from the FDA in 2019. Bionomics Limited in Australia will soon launch phase 3 trials of the investigational oral drug, which is a negative allosteric modulator of the alpha-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. In late July, the company announced “ favorable feedback” from the agency on its phase 2 study, which led to the decision to move forward with larger trials.

Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital have just reported that they may have found a target within the brain that will allow for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to ameliorate PTSD symptoms. They published results of a mapping effort in Nature Neuroscience and reported on one patient who had improved symptoms after receiving TMS for severe PTSD.

But perhaps one of the most promising treatments is a combination of sertraline and the new psychiatric medication brexpiprazole.

Brexpiprazole was developed by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and approved in the United States in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for major depressive disorder and as a treatment for schizophrenia. In 2023, the FDA approved it for Alzheimer’s-related agitation. However, according to Otsuka, its mechanism of action is unknown.

Its efficacy may be mediated through a combination of partial agonist activity at serotonin 5-HT1A and dopamine D2 receptors, antagonist activity at serotonin 5-HT2A receptors, as well as antagonism of alpha-1B/2C receptors, said the company.

“It is the combination, rather than either alone, that’s going to have that broad synergistic pharmacology that is obviously potent for ameliorating the symptoms of PTSD,” said Davis, who has received consulting fees from Otsuka. “That’s an exciting development.”

Otsuka and partner Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals reported results in May from the companies’ phase 2 and 3 randomized clinical trials. The therapy achieved a statistically significant reduction (P <.05) in PTSD symptoms compared with sertraline plus placebo. This was without any supplemental psychotherapy.

The FDA accepted the companies’ new drug application in June and is expected to make a decision on approval in February 2025.
 

The Potential of Psychedelics

Though Lykos Therapeutics may have to go back to the drawing board on its MDMA-AT, psychedelics still have potential as PTSD therapies, Smyth said, who added that the VA is continuing to encourage study of MDMA and other psychedelic agents.

The VA issued a call for proposals for research on psychedelics in January, focused on MDMA or psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy. The administration received the first wave of applications early in the summer.

Scientific peer review panels made up of research experts from within and outside the VA have reviewed the applications and funding announcements are expected this fall, Smyth said.

Wolfgang, the Army psychiatrist, said, “Under the psychedelic treatment research clinical trial award, we welcome investigators to apply to what we anticipate will usher in a new era of innovation and hope for service members and their families who need it the most.”

Psychedelic studies are also proceeding without VA funding, as they have for years, when most of the trials were backed by universities or foundations or other private money. Johns Hopkins University is recruiting for a study in which patients would receive psilocybin along with trauma-focused psychotherapy, as is Ohio State University.

London-based Compass Pathways said in May that it successfully completed a phase 2 trial of Comp360, its synthetic psilocybin, in PTSD. The company has started a phase 3 study in treatment-resistant depression but has not given any further updates on PTSD.

Davis said that she believes that the FDA’s rejection of Lykos won’t lead to a shutdown of exploration of psychedelics.

“I think it informs these designs going forward, but it doesn’t eliminate that whole field of research,” she said.

Davis reported receiving consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Otsuka and research funding from Alkermes, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the VA. Schnurr, Fischer, Smyth, and Wolfgang reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It has been 24 years since a pharmaceutical was last approved for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The condition is notoriously difficult to treat, with up to 40% patients finding no relief from symptoms through psychotherapy or current medications.

Many clinicians, advocates, and patients had pinned their hopes on the psychedelic drug midomafetamine with assisted therapy (MDMA-AT). However, in August, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected it. At this point, it’s unclear when the therapy will be available, if ever.

“Not getting the FDA approval of any drug at this point is a setback for the field,” Lori Davis, MD, a senior research psychiatrist at the Birmingham Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System in Birmingham, Alabama, told Medscape Medical News.

Having an FDA-approved product would have helped increase public awareness of PTSD and driven interest in developing new therapies, said Davis, who is also adjunct professor of psychiatry at the Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

A Treatable Condition

So with MDMA-AT off the table, where does the field go next? 

A public meeting in September hosted by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA in sought to answer that question. Agency officials joined representatives from the Department of Defense (DoD) and VA, patients, advocates, and industry representatives to discuss the current treatment landscape and what can be done to accelerate development of PTSD treatment.

Despite the common belief that PTSD is intractable, it “is a treatable condition,” Paula P. Schnurr, PhD, executive director of the VA National Center for PTSD, said at the meeting.

“There are effective treatments that work well for a lot of people, although not everyone has a satisfactory response,” she added.

The most effective psychotherapies are “trauma-focused,” and include cognitive processing therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and prolonged exposure, according to the VA National Center for PTSD.

Three drugs have been approved by the FDA for PTSD: Venlafaxine (Effexor) in 1993, sertraline (Zoloft) in 1999, and paroxetine (Paxil) in 2000.

However, as the September meeting demonstrated, more therapies are needed.

“It’s clear to FDA and the federal government at large that there is an unmet need for safe and effective therapies to treat PTSD,” Bernard Fischer, MD, deputy director of the Division of Psychiatry in the Office of New Drugs at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said at the meeting.

There is no shortage of research, Fischer added. Nearly 500 trials focused on PTSD are listed on clinicaltrials.gov are recruiting participants now or plan to soon.

Unsurprisingly, one of the primary drivers of PTSD therapeutics research is the VA. About 14% of the 5.7 million veterans who received care through the VA in 2023 had a diagnosis of PTSD.

“The US military is currently losing thousands of service members each year to PTSD- related disability discharges,” US Army Maj. Aaron Wolfgang, MD, a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, said at the meeting. Only about 12%-20% of patients achieve remission with conventional therapies, added Wolfgang, who also is an assistant professor at the Uniformed Services University.

“For these reasons, establishing better treatments for PTSD is not only a matter of humanitarianism but also a pressing matter of national security,” he said.

The VA has committed at least $230 million to more than 140 active research projects in PTSD, Miriam J. Smyth, PhD, acting director of the clinical science, research and development service at the VA, said at the Reagan-Udall meeting.

One of the VA projects is the PTSD psychopharmacology initiative, which began in 2017 and now has 14 active clinical trials, said Smyth, who is also acting director for brain behavior and mental health at the VA. The first study should be finished by 2025.

The Million Veteran Program, with more than 1 million enrollees, has led to the discovery of genes related to re-experiencing traumatic memories and has confirmed that both PTSD and traumatic brain injury are risk factors for dementia, Smyth said.

The DoD has created a novel platform that establishes a common infrastructure for testing multiple drugs, called M-PACT. The platform allows sharing of placebo data across treatment arms. Drugs cycle off the platform if evidence indicates probability of success or failure.

Four trials are actively recruiting veterans and current service members. One is looking at vilazodone, approved in 2011 for major depressive disorder. It is being compared with placebo and fluoxetine in a trial that is currently recruiting.

Another trial will study daridorexant (sold as Quviviq), an orexin receptor antagonist, against placebo. The FDA approved daridorexant in 2022 as an insomnia treatment. A core issue in PTSD is sleep disruption, noted Davis.
 

New Therapies on the Way

Separately, Davis and colleagues are also studying methylphenidate, the stimulant used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. It may help with neurocognitive complaints and reduce PTSD symptoms, said Davis.

Because it is generic, few pharmaceutical manufacturers are likely to test it for PTSD, she said. But eventually, their work may lead a company to test newer stimulants for PTSD, she said.

Another potential therapeutic, BNC210, received Fast Track designation for PTSD from the FDA in 2019. Bionomics Limited in Australia will soon launch phase 3 trials of the investigational oral drug, which is a negative allosteric modulator of the alpha-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. In late July, the company announced “ favorable feedback” from the agency on its phase 2 study, which led to the decision to move forward with larger trials.

Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital have just reported that they may have found a target within the brain that will allow for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to ameliorate PTSD symptoms. They published results of a mapping effort in Nature Neuroscience and reported on one patient who had improved symptoms after receiving TMS for severe PTSD.

But perhaps one of the most promising treatments is a combination of sertraline and the new psychiatric medication brexpiprazole.

Brexpiprazole was developed by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and approved in the United States in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for major depressive disorder and as a treatment for schizophrenia. In 2023, the FDA approved it for Alzheimer’s-related agitation. However, according to Otsuka, its mechanism of action is unknown.

Its efficacy may be mediated through a combination of partial agonist activity at serotonin 5-HT1A and dopamine D2 receptors, antagonist activity at serotonin 5-HT2A receptors, as well as antagonism of alpha-1B/2C receptors, said the company.

“It is the combination, rather than either alone, that’s going to have that broad synergistic pharmacology that is obviously potent for ameliorating the symptoms of PTSD,” said Davis, who has received consulting fees from Otsuka. “That’s an exciting development.”

Otsuka and partner Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals reported results in May from the companies’ phase 2 and 3 randomized clinical trials. The therapy achieved a statistically significant reduction (P <.05) in PTSD symptoms compared with sertraline plus placebo. This was without any supplemental psychotherapy.

The FDA accepted the companies’ new drug application in June and is expected to make a decision on approval in February 2025.
 

The Potential of Psychedelics

Though Lykos Therapeutics may have to go back to the drawing board on its MDMA-AT, psychedelics still have potential as PTSD therapies, Smyth said, who added that the VA is continuing to encourage study of MDMA and other psychedelic agents.

The VA issued a call for proposals for research on psychedelics in January, focused on MDMA or psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy. The administration received the first wave of applications early in the summer.

Scientific peer review panels made up of research experts from within and outside the VA have reviewed the applications and funding announcements are expected this fall, Smyth said.

Wolfgang, the Army psychiatrist, said, “Under the psychedelic treatment research clinical trial award, we welcome investigators to apply to what we anticipate will usher in a new era of innovation and hope for service members and their families who need it the most.”

Psychedelic studies are also proceeding without VA funding, as they have for years, when most of the trials were backed by universities or foundations or other private money. Johns Hopkins University is recruiting for a study in which patients would receive psilocybin along with trauma-focused psychotherapy, as is Ohio State University.

London-based Compass Pathways said in May that it successfully completed a phase 2 trial of Comp360, its synthetic psilocybin, in PTSD. The company has started a phase 3 study in treatment-resistant depression but has not given any further updates on PTSD.

Davis said that she believes that the FDA’s rejection of Lykos won’t lead to a shutdown of exploration of psychedelics.

“I think it informs these designs going forward, but it doesn’t eliminate that whole field of research,” she said.

Davis reported receiving consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Otsuka and research funding from Alkermes, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the VA. Schnurr, Fischer, Smyth, and Wolfgang reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has issued a new scientific statement on the link between heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease and the increased risk for cognitive impairment and dementia.

The statement includes an extensive research review and offers compelling evidence of the inextricable link between heart health and brain health, which investigators said underscores the benefit of early intervention.

The cumulative evidence “confirms that the trajectories of cardiac health and brain health are inextricably intertwined through modifiable and nonmodifiable factors,” the authors wrote.

Investigators say the findings reinforce the message that addressing cardiovascular health early in life may deter the onset or progression of cognitive impairment later on.

And the earlier this is done, the better, said lead author Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology and the vascular neurology section head, Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois, Chicago.

The statement was published online in Stroke.
 

Bridging the Research Gap

It’s well known that there’s a bidirectional relationship between heart and brain function. For example, heart failure can lead to decreased blood flow that can damage the brain, and stroke in some areas of the brain can affect the heart.

However, that’s only part of the puzzle and doesn’t address all the gaps in the understanding of how cardiovascular disease contributes to cognition, said Testai.

“What we’re trying to do here is to go one step further and describe other connections between the heart and the brain,” he said.

Investigators carried out an extensive PubMed search for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease. Researchers detailed the frequency of each condition, mechanisms by which they might cause cognitive impairment, and prospects for prevention and treatment to maintain brain health.

A recurring theme in the paper is the role of inflammation. Evidence shows there are “remarkable similarities in the inflammatory response that takes place,” with both cardiac disease and cognitive decline, said Testai.

Another potential shared mechanism relates to biomarkers, particularly amyloid, which is strongly linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

“But some studies show amyloid can also be present in the heart, especially in patients who have decreased ejection fraction,” said Testai.
 

Robust Heart-Brain Connection

The statement’s authors collected a substantial amount of evidence showing vascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes “can change how the brain processes and clears up amyloid,” Testai added.

The paper also provides a compilation of evidence of shared genetic predispositions when it comes to heart and brain disorders.

“We noticed that some genetic signatures that have historically been associated with heart disease seem to also correlate with structural changes in the brain. That means that at the end of the day, some patients may be born with a genetic predisposition to developing both conditions,” said Testai.

This indicates that the link between the two organs “begins as early as conception” and underscores the importance of adopting healthy lifestyle habits as early as possible, he added.

“That means you can avoid bad habits that eventually lead to hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol, that eventually will lead to cardiac disease, which eventually will lead to stroke, which eventually will lead to cognitive decline,” Testai noted.

However, cardiovascular health is more complicated than having good genes and adhering to a healthy lifestyle. It’s not clear, for example, why some people who should be predisposed to developing heart disease do not develop it, something Testai refers to as enhanced “resilience.”

For example, Hispanic or Latino patients, who have relatively poor cardiovascular risk factor profiles, seem to be less susceptible to developing cardiac disease.
 

More Research Needed

While genetics may partly explain the paradox, Testai believes other protective factors are at play, including strong social support networks.

Testai referred to the AHA’s “Life’s Essential 8” — the eight components of cardiovascular health. These include a healthy diet, participation in physical activity, nicotine avoidance, healthy sleep, healthy weight, and healthy levels of blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

More evidence is needed to show that effective management of cardiac disease positively affects cognition. Currently, cognitive measures are rarely included in studies examining various heart disease treatments, said Testai.

“There should probably be an effort to include brain health outcomes in some of the cardiac literature to make sure we can also measure whether the intervention in the heart leads to an advantage for the brain,” he said.

More research is also needed to determine whether immunomodulation has a beneficial effect on the cognitive trajectory, the statement’s authors noted.

They point out that the interpretation and generalizability of the studies described in the statement are confounded by disparate methodologies, including small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs, and underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals.
 

‘An Important Step’

Reached for a comment, Natalia S. Rost, MD, Chief of the Stroke Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this paper “is an important step” in terms of pulling together pertinent information on the topic of heart-brain health.

She praised the authors for gathering evidence on risk factors related to atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and coronary heart disease, which is “the part of the puzzle that is controllable.”

This helps reinforce the message that controlling vascular risk factors helps with brain health, said Rost.

But brain health is “much more complex than just vascular health,” she said. It includes other elements such as freedom from epilepsy, migraine, traumatic brain injury, and adult learning disabilities.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) has issued a new scientific statement on the link between heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease and the increased risk for cognitive impairment and dementia.

The statement includes an extensive research review and offers compelling evidence of the inextricable link between heart health and brain health, which investigators said underscores the benefit of early intervention.

The cumulative evidence “confirms that the trajectories of cardiac health and brain health are inextricably intertwined through modifiable and nonmodifiable factors,” the authors wrote.

Investigators say the findings reinforce the message that addressing cardiovascular health early in life may deter the onset or progression of cognitive impairment later on.

And the earlier this is done, the better, said lead author Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology and the vascular neurology section head, Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois, Chicago.

The statement was published online in Stroke.
 

Bridging the Research Gap

It’s well known that there’s a bidirectional relationship between heart and brain function. For example, heart failure can lead to decreased blood flow that can damage the brain, and stroke in some areas of the brain can affect the heart.

However, that’s only part of the puzzle and doesn’t address all the gaps in the understanding of how cardiovascular disease contributes to cognition, said Testai.

“What we’re trying to do here is to go one step further and describe other connections between the heart and the brain,” he said.

Investigators carried out an extensive PubMed search for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease. Researchers detailed the frequency of each condition, mechanisms by which they might cause cognitive impairment, and prospects for prevention and treatment to maintain brain health.

A recurring theme in the paper is the role of inflammation. Evidence shows there are “remarkable similarities in the inflammatory response that takes place,” with both cardiac disease and cognitive decline, said Testai.

Another potential shared mechanism relates to biomarkers, particularly amyloid, which is strongly linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

“But some studies show amyloid can also be present in the heart, especially in patients who have decreased ejection fraction,” said Testai.
 

Robust Heart-Brain Connection

The statement’s authors collected a substantial amount of evidence showing vascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes “can change how the brain processes and clears up amyloid,” Testai added.

The paper also provides a compilation of evidence of shared genetic predispositions when it comes to heart and brain disorders.

“We noticed that some genetic signatures that have historically been associated with heart disease seem to also correlate with structural changes in the brain. That means that at the end of the day, some patients may be born with a genetic predisposition to developing both conditions,” said Testai.

This indicates that the link between the two organs “begins as early as conception” and underscores the importance of adopting healthy lifestyle habits as early as possible, he added.

“That means you can avoid bad habits that eventually lead to hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol, that eventually will lead to cardiac disease, which eventually will lead to stroke, which eventually will lead to cognitive decline,” Testai noted.

However, cardiovascular health is more complicated than having good genes and adhering to a healthy lifestyle. It’s not clear, for example, why some people who should be predisposed to developing heart disease do not develop it, something Testai refers to as enhanced “resilience.”

For example, Hispanic or Latino patients, who have relatively poor cardiovascular risk factor profiles, seem to be less susceptible to developing cardiac disease.
 

More Research Needed

While genetics may partly explain the paradox, Testai believes other protective factors are at play, including strong social support networks.

Testai referred to the AHA’s “Life’s Essential 8” — the eight components of cardiovascular health. These include a healthy diet, participation in physical activity, nicotine avoidance, healthy sleep, healthy weight, and healthy levels of blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

More evidence is needed to show that effective management of cardiac disease positively affects cognition. Currently, cognitive measures are rarely included in studies examining various heart disease treatments, said Testai.

“There should probably be an effort to include brain health outcomes in some of the cardiac literature to make sure we can also measure whether the intervention in the heart leads to an advantage for the brain,” he said.

More research is also needed to determine whether immunomodulation has a beneficial effect on the cognitive trajectory, the statement’s authors noted.

They point out that the interpretation and generalizability of the studies described in the statement are confounded by disparate methodologies, including small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs, and underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals.
 

‘An Important Step’

Reached for a comment, Natalia S. Rost, MD, Chief of the Stroke Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this paper “is an important step” in terms of pulling together pertinent information on the topic of heart-brain health.

She praised the authors for gathering evidence on risk factors related to atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and coronary heart disease, which is “the part of the puzzle that is controllable.”

This helps reinforce the message that controlling vascular risk factors helps with brain health, said Rost.

But brain health is “much more complex than just vascular health,” she said. It includes other elements such as freedom from epilepsy, migraine, traumatic brain injury, and adult learning disabilities.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) has issued a new scientific statement on the link between heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease and the increased risk for cognitive impairment and dementia.

The statement includes an extensive research review and offers compelling evidence of the inextricable link between heart health and brain health, which investigators said underscores the benefit of early intervention.

The cumulative evidence “confirms that the trajectories of cardiac health and brain health are inextricably intertwined through modifiable and nonmodifiable factors,” the authors wrote.

Investigators say the findings reinforce the message that addressing cardiovascular health early in life may deter the onset or progression of cognitive impairment later on.

And the earlier this is done, the better, said lead author Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology and the vascular neurology section head, Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois, Chicago.

The statement was published online in Stroke.
 

Bridging the Research Gap

It’s well known that there’s a bidirectional relationship between heart and brain function. For example, heart failure can lead to decreased blood flow that can damage the brain, and stroke in some areas of the brain can affect the heart.

However, that’s only part of the puzzle and doesn’t address all the gaps in the understanding of how cardiovascular disease contributes to cognition, said Testai.

“What we’re trying to do here is to go one step further and describe other connections between the heart and the brain,” he said.

Investigators carried out an extensive PubMed search for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease. Researchers detailed the frequency of each condition, mechanisms by which they might cause cognitive impairment, and prospects for prevention and treatment to maintain brain health.

A recurring theme in the paper is the role of inflammation. Evidence shows there are “remarkable similarities in the inflammatory response that takes place,” with both cardiac disease and cognitive decline, said Testai.

Another potential shared mechanism relates to biomarkers, particularly amyloid, which is strongly linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

“But some studies show amyloid can also be present in the heart, especially in patients who have decreased ejection fraction,” said Testai.
 

Robust Heart-Brain Connection

The statement’s authors collected a substantial amount of evidence showing vascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes “can change how the brain processes and clears up amyloid,” Testai added.

The paper also provides a compilation of evidence of shared genetic predispositions when it comes to heart and brain disorders.

“We noticed that some genetic signatures that have historically been associated with heart disease seem to also correlate with structural changes in the brain. That means that at the end of the day, some patients may be born with a genetic predisposition to developing both conditions,” said Testai.

This indicates that the link between the two organs “begins as early as conception” and underscores the importance of adopting healthy lifestyle habits as early as possible, he added.

“That means you can avoid bad habits that eventually lead to hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol, that eventually will lead to cardiac disease, which eventually will lead to stroke, which eventually will lead to cognitive decline,” Testai noted.

However, cardiovascular health is more complicated than having good genes and adhering to a healthy lifestyle. It’s not clear, for example, why some people who should be predisposed to developing heart disease do not develop it, something Testai refers to as enhanced “resilience.”

For example, Hispanic or Latino patients, who have relatively poor cardiovascular risk factor profiles, seem to be less susceptible to developing cardiac disease.
 

More Research Needed

While genetics may partly explain the paradox, Testai believes other protective factors are at play, including strong social support networks.

Testai referred to the AHA’s “Life’s Essential 8” — the eight components of cardiovascular health. These include a healthy diet, participation in physical activity, nicotine avoidance, healthy sleep, healthy weight, and healthy levels of blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

More evidence is needed to show that effective management of cardiac disease positively affects cognition. Currently, cognitive measures are rarely included in studies examining various heart disease treatments, said Testai.

“There should probably be an effort to include brain health outcomes in some of the cardiac literature to make sure we can also measure whether the intervention in the heart leads to an advantage for the brain,” he said.

More research is also needed to determine whether immunomodulation has a beneficial effect on the cognitive trajectory, the statement’s authors noted.

They point out that the interpretation and generalizability of the studies described in the statement are confounded by disparate methodologies, including small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs, and underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals.
 

‘An Important Step’

Reached for a comment, Natalia S. Rost, MD, Chief of the Stroke Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this paper “is an important step” in terms of pulling together pertinent information on the topic of heart-brain health.

She praised the authors for gathering evidence on risk factors related to atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and coronary heart disease, which is “the part of the puzzle that is controllable.”

This helps reinforce the message that controlling vascular risk factors helps with brain health, said Rost.

But brain health is “much more complex than just vascular health,” she said. It includes other elements such as freedom from epilepsy, migraine, traumatic brain injury, and adult learning disabilities.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will conduct a scientific assessment to find out in whether kidney cancer should be considered a presumptive service-connected condition for veterans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). This assessment is the first step in the VA presumptive condition investigative process, which could allow exposed veterans who were exposed to PFAs during their service to access more VA services.

A class of more than 12,000 chemicals, PFAs have been used in the military since the early 1970s in many items, including military-grade firefighting foam. Studies have already suggested links between the so-called forever chemicals and cancer, particularly kidney cancer.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is assessing contamination at hundreds of sites, while the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DoD stop using those foams starting in October and remove all stocks from active and former installations and equipment. That may not happen until next year, though, because the DoD has requested a waiver through October 2025 and may extend it through 2026.

When a condition is considered presumptive, eligible veterans do not need to prove their service caused their disease to receive benefits. As part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to expand benefits and services for toxin-exposed veterans and their families, the VA expedited health care and benefits eligibility under the PACT Act by several years—including extending presumptions for head cancer, neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hypertension for Vietnam era veterans. The VA has also extended presumptions for > 300 new conditions, most recently for male breast cancer, urethral cancer, and cancer of the paraurethral glands.

Whether a condition is an established presumptive condition or not, the VA will consider claims on a case-by-case basis and can grant disability compensation benefits if sufficient evidence of service connection is found. “[M]ake no mistake: Veterans should not wait for the outcome of this review to apply for the benefits and care they deserve,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a release.  “If you’re a veteran and believe your military service has negatively impacted your health, we encourage you to apply for VA care and benefits today.”

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed scientific assessment between PFAs exposure and kidney cancer via the Federal Register. The VA is set to host a listening session on Nov. 19, 2024, to allow individuals to share research and input. Interested individuals may register to participate. The public may also comment via either forum on other conditions that would benefit from review for potential service-connection.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will conduct a scientific assessment to find out in whether kidney cancer should be considered a presumptive service-connected condition for veterans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). This assessment is the first step in the VA presumptive condition investigative process, which could allow exposed veterans who were exposed to PFAs during their service to access more VA services.

A class of more than 12,000 chemicals, PFAs have been used in the military since the early 1970s in many items, including military-grade firefighting foam. Studies have already suggested links between the so-called forever chemicals and cancer, particularly kidney cancer.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is assessing contamination at hundreds of sites, while the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DoD stop using those foams starting in October and remove all stocks from active and former installations and equipment. That may not happen until next year, though, because the DoD has requested a waiver through October 2025 and may extend it through 2026.

When a condition is considered presumptive, eligible veterans do not need to prove their service caused their disease to receive benefits. As part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to expand benefits and services for toxin-exposed veterans and their families, the VA expedited health care and benefits eligibility under the PACT Act by several years—including extending presumptions for head cancer, neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hypertension for Vietnam era veterans. The VA has also extended presumptions for > 300 new conditions, most recently for male breast cancer, urethral cancer, and cancer of the paraurethral glands.

Whether a condition is an established presumptive condition or not, the VA will consider claims on a case-by-case basis and can grant disability compensation benefits if sufficient evidence of service connection is found. “[M]ake no mistake: Veterans should not wait for the outcome of this review to apply for the benefits and care they deserve,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a release.  “If you’re a veteran and believe your military service has negatively impacted your health, we encourage you to apply for VA care and benefits today.”

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed scientific assessment between PFAs exposure and kidney cancer via the Federal Register. The VA is set to host a listening session on Nov. 19, 2024, to allow individuals to share research and input. Interested individuals may register to participate. The public may also comment via either forum on other conditions that would benefit from review for potential service-connection.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will conduct a scientific assessment to find out in whether kidney cancer should be considered a presumptive service-connected condition for veterans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). This assessment is the first step in the VA presumptive condition investigative process, which could allow exposed veterans who were exposed to PFAs during their service to access more VA services.

A class of more than 12,000 chemicals, PFAs have been used in the military since the early 1970s in many items, including military-grade firefighting foam. Studies have already suggested links between the so-called forever chemicals and cancer, particularly kidney cancer.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is assessing contamination at hundreds of sites, while the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DoD stop using those foams starting in October and remove all stocks from active and former installations and equipment. That may not happen until next year, though, because the DoD has requested a waiver through October 2025 and may extend it through 2026.

When a condition is considered presumptive, eligible veterans do not need to prove their service caused their disease to receive benefits. As part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to expand benefits and services for toxin-exposed veterans and their families, the VA expedited health care and benefits eligibility under the PACT Act by several years—including extending presumptions for head cancer, neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hypertension for Vietnam era veterans. The VA has also extended presumptions for > 300 new conditions, most recently for male breast cancer, urethral cancer, and cancer of the paraurethral glands.

Whether a condition is an established presumptive condition or not, the VA will consider claims on a case-by-case basis and can grant disability compensation benefits if sufficient evidence of service connection is found. “[M]ake no mistake: Veterans should not wait for the outcome of this review to apply for the benefits and care they deserve,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a release.  “If you’re a veteran and believe your military service has negatively impacted your health, we encourage you to apply for VA care and benefits today.”

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed scientific assessment between PFAs exposure and kidney cancer via the Federal Register. The VA is set to host a listening session on Nov. 19, 2024, to allow individuals to share research and input. Interested individuals may register to participate. The public may also comment via either forum on other conditions that would benefit from review for potential service-connection.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that tele-emergency care (tele-EC) is now available nationwide. According to the VA, the expansion has already helped > 61,000 callers with a 59.4% case resolution rate, meaning veterans’ needs were resolved without them having to travel to urgent care or an emergency department.

Tele-EC does not replace the need for in-person emergency evaluation, but offers quick, virtual triage assessments for veterans in rural areas or those with mobility and transportation challenges when in-person immediate care can be difficult to access. The program is a part of VA Health Connect, which connects the caller to a clinical triage nurse, who connects the veteran to tele-emergency care when clinically appropriate. Tele-EC practitioners evaluate the veteran over the phone or on video and recommend treatment or follow-up, including in-person care if needed. In life-threatening emergencies, the clinical triage nurse will call 911 and stay on the phone with the veteran until help arrives. The VA however, says the best step for a veteran experiencing a life-threatening emergency is to immediately contact 911 as opposed to seeking support via tele-EC.

The program can save time not only through on-the-spot evaluation, but by avoiding drive and wait times. “Sometimes, you’re not sure whether what you’re experiencing is a minor emergency or not — and tele-emergency care can help you resolve those questions,” VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, says. “Veterans can get immediate, virtual triage with a VA medical provider who has direct access to their medical records. This avoids having to potentially drive to the nearest emergency department and wait to be evaluated, if appropriate.”

Veterans enrolled in VA health care can now access tele-EC nationwide by calling VA Health Connect and through the VA Health Chat app. Veterans can find their local VA Health Connect number by searching for their facility.