News

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 20% of US physicians took less than 1 week of vacation in the previous year, a new study found. When doctors did go on vacation, 70% reported working on their days off to handle patient-related tasks.

Burnout was more likely among doctors who worked more during vacations and lacked coverage in responding to electronic health messages from patients, according to the cross-sectional study, which was published on January 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.“It’s important to provide physicians with adequate time to disconnect from work and recharge,” said study coauthor Tait Shanafelt, MD, chief wellness officer at Stanford Medicine, in an interview.

The study’s conclusion that most US physicians work on their days off “is a marker of inadequate staffing, suboptimal teamwork, and poorly designed coverage systems,” he added. “Simply allocating people a number of vacation days is not enough.”

According to Dr. Shanafelt, there’s been little research into vacation’s impact on physician well-being. However, it is clear that work overload and exhaustion are major problems among American physicians. “Inadequate time off may magnify these challenges.”

Research suggests that physicians suffer more burnout than other US workers even after adjusting for confounders, he said. Extensive evidence shows that burnout in physicians contributes to medical errors and erodes quality of care and patient satisfaction, he added.

For the new study, researchers mailed surveys to 3671 members of the American Medical Association from 2020 to 2021, and 1162 (31.7%) responded. Another 6348 (7.1%) responded to an email survey sent to 90,000 physicians. An analysis suggested the respondents were representative of all US practicing physicians. 

Among 3024 respondents who responded to a subsurvey about vacations, about 40% took more than 15 days of vacation over the past year, about 40% took 6-15 days, and about 20% took 5 or fewer days. 

Fewer than half of physicians said their electronic health record (EHR) inboxes were fully covered by others while they were away. About 70% said they worked while on vacation, with nearly 15% working an hour or more each day.

Emergency physicians were the least likely and anesthesiologists were the most likely to take at least 15 days of vacation per year, according to the study. 

Women were more likely than men to work 30 or more minutes a day on vacation. Physicians aged 65 years and older were more likely to take 15 or more days of vacation per year than those under 35 years.

An adjusted analysis linked complete EHR inbox coverage to lower odds of taking time during vacation to work (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80).

“For many, difficulty finding clinical coverage, lack of EHR inbox coverage, and returning to an overwhelming backlog of EHR inbox work at were identified as barriers to taking vacation,” Dr. Shanafelt said.

Researchers linked lower rates of burnout to taking more than 3 weeks of vacation per year (OR, 0.59-0.66, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 0.40-0.98) vs none. They also linked less burnout to full EHR inbox coverage while on vacation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and more burnout to spending 30 minutes or more on work while on a typical vacation day (OR, 1.58-1.97, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 1.22-2.77). 

Study limitations include the low participation rate and lack of insight into causation. It’s not clear how burnout and less vacation time are related and whether one causes the other, Shanafelt said. “It is possible there are a number of interacting factors rather than a simple, linear relationship.”

In an interview, Lazar J. Greenfield, Jr., MD, PhD, professor and chairman of neurology at UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut, said his department encourages clinicians to plan vacations well ahead of time, and “we make a real strong effort to make sure that people are fully covered and someone has their Epic inbox.”

Dr. Greenfield, who wasn’t involved in the new study, recommended that physicians plan active vacations, so they have less downtime to catch up on work matters. But he acknowledged that stepping away from emails can be difficult, especially when physicians fear pileups of work upon their return or don’t want to annoy patients with tardy responses.

“They have a hard time disengaging from their moral obligations to patients,” he said. “Another issue, particularly in my field of neurology, is that there’s a lot of subspecialties. Finding somebody with the exact subspecialty and expertise to cover a very specific patient population they treat can be really hard.”

The Stanford WellMD Center, Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-being, and American Medical Association funded the study.

Dr. Shanafelt discloses coinventing the Well-Being Index and its derivatives with another study author; Mayo Clinic licensed the Well-Being Index and pays them royalties outside the submitted work. Dr. Shanafelt also reported support for grand rounds, lectures, and advising for healthcare organizations outside the submitted work. Other authors reported personal fees from Marvin Behavioral Health and grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Science Foundation, and Med Ed Solutions. 

Dr. Greenfield had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

About 20% of US physicians took less than 1 week of vacation in the previous year, a new study found. When doctors did go on vacation, 70% reported working on their days off to handle patient-related tasks.

Burnout was more likely among doctors who worked more during vacations and lacked coverage in responding to electronic health messages from patients, according to the cross-sectional study, which was published on January 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.“It’s important to provide physicians with adequate time to disconnect from work and recharge,” said study coauthor Tait Shanafelt, MD, chief wellness officer at Stanford Medicine, in an interview.

The study’s conclusion that most US physicians work on their days off “is a marker of inadequate staffing, suboptimal teamwork, and poorly designed coverage systems,” he added. “Simply allocating people a number of vacation days is not enough.”

According to Dr. Shanafelt, there’s been little research into vacation’s impact on physician well-being. However, it is clear that work overload and exhaustion are major problems among American physicians. “Inadequate time off may magnify these challenges.”

Research suggests that physicians suffer more burnout than other US workers even after adjusting for confounders, he said. Extensive evidence shows that burnout in physicians contributes to medical errors and erodes quality of care and patient satisfaction, he added.

For the new study, researchers mailed surveys to 3671 members of the American Medical Association from 2020 to 2021, and 1162 (31.7%) responded. Another 6348 (7.1%) responded to an email survey sent to 90,000 physicians. An analysis suggested the respondents were representative of all US practicing physicians. 

Among 3024 respondents who responded to a subsurvey about vacations, about 40% took more than 15 days of vacation over the past year, about 40% took 6-15 days, and about 20% took 5 or fewer days. 

Fewer than half of physicians said their electronic health record (EHR) inboxes were fully covered by others while they were away. About 70% said they worked while on vacation, with nearly 15% working an hour or more each day.

Emergency physicians were the least likely and anesthesiologists were the most likely to take at least 15 days of vacation per year, according to the study. 

Women were more likely than men to work 30 or more minutes a day on vacation. Physicians aged 65 years and older were more likely to take 15 or more days of vacation per year than those under 35 years.

An adjusted analysis linked complete EHR inbox coverage to lower odds of taking time during vacation to work (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80).

“For many, difficulty finding clinical coverage, lack of EHR inbox coverage, and returning to an overwhelming backlog of EHR inbox work at were identified as barriers to taking vacation,” Dr. Shanafelt said.

Researchers linked lower rates of burnout to taking more than 3 weeks of vacation per year (OR, 0.59-0.66, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 0.40-0.98) vs none. They also linked less burnout to full EHR inbox coverage while on vacation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and more burnout to spending 30 minutes or more on work while on a typical vacation day (OR, 1.58-1.97, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 1.22-2.77). 

Study limitations include the low participation rate and lack of insight into causation. It’s not clear how burnout and less vacation time are related and whether one causes the other, Shanafelt said. “It is possible there are a number of interacting factors rather than a simple, linear relationship.”

In an interview, Lazar J. Greenfield, Jr., MD, PhD, professor and chairman of neurology at UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut, said his department encourages clinicians to plan vacations well ahead of time, and “we make a real strong effort to make sure that people are fully covered and someone has their Epic inbox.”

Dr. Greenfield, who wasn’t involved in the new study, recommended that physicians plan active vacations, so they have less downtime to catch up on work matters. But he acknowledged that stepping away from emails can be difficult, especially when physicians fear pileups of work upon their return or don’t want to annoy patients with tardy responses.

“They have a hard time disengaging from their moral obligations to patients,” he said. “Another issue, particularly in my field of neurology, is that there’s a lot of subspecialties. Finding somebody with the exact subspecialty and expertise to cover a very specific patient population they treat can be really hard.”

The Stanford WellMD Center, Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-being, and American Medical Association funded the study.

Dr. Shanafelt discloses coinventing the Well-Being Index and its derivatives with another study author; Mayo Clinic licensed the Well-Being Index and pays them royalties outside the submitted work. Dr. Shanafelt also reported support for grand rounds, lectures, and advising for healthcare organizations outside the submitted work. Other authors reported personal fees from Marvin Behavioral Health and grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Science Foundation, and Med Ed Solutions. 

Dr. Greenfield had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

About 20% of US physicians took less than 1 week of vacation in the previous year, a new study found. When doctors did go on vacation, 70% reported working on their days off to handle patient-related tasks.

Burnout was more likely among doctors who worked more during vacations and lacked coverage in responding to electronic health messages from patients, according to the cross-sectional study, which was published on January 12, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.“It’s important to provide physicians with adequate time to disconnect from work and recharge,” said study coauthor Tait Shanafelt, MD, chief wellness officer at Stanford Medicine, in an interview.

The study’s conclusion that most US physicians work on their days off “is a marker of inadequate staffing, suboptimal teamwork, and poorly designed coverage systems,” he added. “Simply allocating people a number of vacation days is not enough.”

According to Dr. Shanafelt, there’s been little research into vacation’s impact on physician well-being. However, it is clear that work overload and exhaustion are major problems among American physicians. “Inadequate time off may magnify these challenges.”

Research suggests that physicians suffer more burnout than other US workers even after adjusting for confounders, he said. Extensive evidence shows that burnout in physicians contributes to medical errors and erodes quality of care and patient satisfaction, he added.

For the new study, researchers mailed surveys to 3671 members of the American Medical Association from 2020 to 2021, and 1162 (31.7%) responded. Another 6348 (7.1%) responded to an email survey sent to 90,000 physicians. An analysis suggested the respondents were representative of all US practicing physicians. 

Among 3024 respondents who responded to a subsurvey about vacations, about 40% took more than 15 days of vacation over the past year, about 40% took 6-15 days, and about 20% took 5 or fewer days. 

Fewer than half of physicians said their electronic health record (EHR) inboxes were fully covered by others while they were away. About 70% said they worked while on vacation, with nearly 15% working an hour or more each day.

Emergency physicians were the least likely and anesthesiologists were the most likely to take at least 15 days of vacation per year, according to the study. 

Women were more likely than men to work 30 or more minutes a day on vacation. Physicians aged 65 years and older were more likely to take 15 or more days of vacation per year than those under 35 years.

An adjusted analysis linked complete EHR inbox coverage to lower odds of taking time during vacation to work (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80).

“For many, difficulty finding clinical coverage, lack of EHR inbox coverage, and returning to an overwhelming backlog of EHR inbox work at were identified as barriers to taking vacation,” Dr. Shanafelt said.

Researchers linked lower rates of burnout to taking more than 3 weeks of vacation per year (OR, 0.59-0.66, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 0.40-0.98) vs none. They also linked less burnout to full EHR inbox coverage while on vacation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and more burnout to spending 30 minutes or more on work while on a typical vacation day (OR, 1.58-1.97, depending on time spent; 95% CI, 1.22-2.77). 

Study limitations include the low participation rate and lack of insight into causation. It’s not clear how burnout and less vacation time are related and whether one causes the other, Shanafelt said. “It is possible there are a number of interacting factors rather than a simple, linear relationship.”

In an interview, Lazar J. Greenfield, Jr., MD, PhD, professor and chairman of neurology at UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut, said his department encourages clinicians to plan vacations well ahead of time, and “we make a real strong effort to make sure that people are fully covered and someone has their Epic inbox.”

Dr. Greenfield, who wasn’t involved in the new study, recommended that physicians plan active vacations, so they have less downtime to catch up on work matters. But he acknowledged that stepping away from emails can be difficult, especially when physicians fear pileups of work upon their return or don’t want to annoy patients with tardy responses.

“They have a hard time disengaging from their moral obligations to patients,” he said. “Another issue, particularly in my field of neurology, is that there’s a lot of subspecialties. Finding somebody with the exact subspecialty and expertise to cover a very specific patient population they treat can be really hard.”

The Stanford WellMD Center, Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-being, and American Medical Association funded the study.

Dr. Shanafelt discloses coinventing the Well-Being Index and its derivatives with another study author; Mayo Clinic licensed the Well-Being Index and pays them royalties outside the submitted work. Dr. Shanafelt also reported support for grand rounds, lectures, and advising for healthcare organizations outside the submitted work. Other authors reported personal fees from Marvin Behavioral Health and grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Science Foundation, and Med Ed Solutions. 

Dr. Greenfield had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected approval of Astellas’s investigational gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer agent zolbetuximab owing to manufacturing issues, the company announced January 8.

The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.

The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release. 

Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.

Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone. 

If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected approval of Astellas’s investigational gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer agent zolbetuximab owing to manufacturing issues, the company announced January 8.

The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.

The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release. 

Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.

Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone. 

If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected approval of Astellas’s investigational gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer agent zolbetuximab owing to manufacturing issues, the company announced January 8.

The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.

The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release. 

Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.

Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone. 

If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There’s no question that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists represent a major advance in the treatment of obesity for patients with or without diabetes. In clinical trials, participants lost 15%-20% of their body weight, depending on the drug.

But studies also have shown that once people stop taking these drugs — either by choice, because of shortage, or lack of access — they regain most, if not all, the weight they lost.

Arguably more frustrating is the fact that those who continue on the drug eventually reach a plateau, at which point, the body seemingly stubbornly refuses to lose more weight. Essentially, it stabilizes at its set point, said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, MPA, MBA, an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
 

‘Tug of War’

Every study of weight loss drugs done over the past 40 years or so shows a plateau, Dr. Stanford told this news organization. “If you look at the phentermine/topiramate studies, there’s a plateau. If you look at the bupropion/naltrexone studies, there’s a plateau. Or if we look at bariatric surgery, there’s a plateau. And it’s the same for the newer GLP-1 drugs.”

The reason? “It really depends on where the body gets to,” Dr. Stanford said. “The body knows what it needs to do to maintain itself, and the brain knows where it’s supposed to be. And when you lose weight and reach what you feel is a lower set point, the body resists.”

When the body goes below its set point, the hunger hormone ghrelin, which is housed in the brain, gets reactivated and gradually starts to reemerge, she explained. GLP-1, which is housed in the distal portion of the small intestine and in the colon, also starts to reemerge over time.

“It becomes kind of a tug of war” between the body and whatever weight loss strategy is being implemented, from drugs to surgery to lifestyle changes, Dr. Stanford said. “The patient will start to notice changes in how their body is responding. Usually, they’ll say they don’t feel like the treatment is working the same. But the treatment is working the same as it’s always been working — except their body is now acclimated to it.”

Anne L. Peters, MD, CDE, professor and clinical scholar, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and director, agreed that in the simplest terms, a plateau occurs because “the body becomes more and more used to” the weight loss intervention.

However, when you lose weight, you lose both fat mass and lean body mass, and lean body mass is the metabolically active part of your body, explained Dr. Peters. “That’s what burns and basically makes up your basal metabolic rate.”

With weight loss, the metabolism slows down, she said. If patients need 2000 calories a day to survive at a certain weight and then lose 50 pounds, they may then need only a 1000 calories a day. “With any obesity treatment, you reach a point at which your metabolic rate and your daily caloric requirements become equal, and you stop losing weight, even though your daily caloric requirement is less than it was when your weight was higher.”
 

Managing the Plateau

Several strategies can be used to help patients break through a plateau. One is to try multiple weight loss agents with different targets — something often done in the real world, Dr. Stanford said. “You don’t see this in the studies, which are focused on just one drug, but many of our patients are on combination therapy. They’re on a GLP-1 drug plus phentermine/topiramate plus metformin, and more. They’re usually on three, four, five drugs, similar to what we would see with resistant hypertension.”

If a patient plateaus on a GLP-1 drug, Dr. Stanford might add phentermine. When the patient reaches a plateau on phentermine, she would switch again to another agent. “The goal is to use agents that treat different receptors in the brain,” she said. “You would never use two GLP-1 agonists; you would use the GLP-1, and then something that treats norepinephrine, for example.”

At the same time, Dr. Peters noted, “try to get them off the drugs that cause weight gain, like insulin and sulfonylurea agents.”

Tapering the GLP-1 dose can also help, Dr. Peters said. However, she added, “If I’m using a GLP-1 drug for type 2 diabetes, it’s different than if I’m using it just for weight loss. With type 2 diabetes, if you taper too much, the blood sugar and weight will go back up, so you need to reach a balance.”

Dr. Peters has successfully tapered patients from a 2-mg dose down to 1 mg. She has also changed the strategy for some — ie, the patient takes the drug every other week instead of every week. “I even have a patient or two who just take it once a month and that seems to be enough,” she said. “You want to help them be at the dose that maintains their weight and keeps them healthy with the least possible medication.”

Emphasizing lifestyle changes is also important, she said. Although resistance training won’t necessarily help with weight loss, “it’s critical to maintaining lean body mass. If people keep losing and regaining weight, they’re going to lose more and more lean body mass and gain the weight back primarily as fat mass. So, their exercise should include about half aerobic activity and half resistance training.”
 

Long-term Journey

Setting appropriate expectations is a key part of helping patients accept and deal with a plateau. “This is long-term, lifelong journey,” Dr. Stanford said. “We need to think about obesity as a complex, multifactorial chronic disease, like we think about hypertension or type 2 diabetes or hyperlipidemia.”

Furthermore, and in keeping with that perspective, emerging evidence is demonstrating that GLP-1 drugs also have important nonglycemic benefits that can be achieved and maintained, Dr. Peters said. “Obviously weight loss matters, and weight loss is good for you if you’re overweight or obese. But now we know that GLP-1 drugs have wonderful benefits for the heart as well as renal function.” These are reasons to continue the drugs even in the face of a plateau.

One of Dr. Peters’ patients, a physician with type 2 diabetes, had “fought with her weight her whole life. She’s been on one or another GLP-1 drug for more than 15 years, and while none seem to impact her weight, she’s gone from having relatively poorly controlled to now beautifully controlled diabetes,” Dr. Peters said. “Even if she hasn’t lost, she’s maintained her weight, a benefit since people tend to gain weight as they get older, and she hasn’t gained.”

Another patient was disabled, on oxygen, and had recurrent pulmonary embolisms. “She weighed 420 pounds, and I put her on semaglutide because she was too sick to be considered for bariatric surgery.” When that didn’t work, Dr. Peters switched her to tirzepatide, gradually increasing the dose; the patient lost 80 pounds, her emboli are gone, she can walk down the street, and went back to work.

“Part of why she could do that is that she started exercising,” Dr. Peters noted. “She felt so much better from the drug-related weight loss that she began to do things that help enhance weight loss. She became happier because she was no longer homebound.”

This points to another element that can help patients break through a plateau over time, Dr. Peters said — namely, behavioral health. “The more people lose weight, the more they feel better about themselves, and that may mean that they take better care of themselves. The psychological part of this journey is as important as anything else. Not everyone has the same response to these agents, and there are all sorts of issues behind why people are overweight that physicians can’t ignore.

“So, in addition to managing the drugs and lifestyle, it’s important to make sure that people access the behavioral health help they need, and that once they break through a plateau, they don’t develop an eating disorder or go to the opposite extreme and become too thin, which has happened with some of my patients,” she said. “We need to remember that we’re not just giving patients a miraculous weight loss. We’re helping them to be healthier, mentally as well as physically.”

Dr. Stanford disclosed that she had been a consultant for Calibrate, GoodRx, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Vida Health, Life Force, Ilant Health, Melli Cell, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters disclosed that she had been a consultant for Vertex, Medscape Medical News, and Lilly; received funding from Abbott and Insulet; and had stock options in Omada Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There’s no question that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists represent a major advance in the treatment of obesity for patients with or without diabetes. In clinical trials, participants lost 15%-20% of their body weight, depending on the drug.

But studies also have shown that once people stop taking these drugs — either by choice, because of shortage, or lack of access — they regain most, if not all, the weight they lost.

Arguably more frustrating is the fact that those who continue on the drug eventually reach a plateau, at which point, the body seemingly stubbornly refuses to lose more weight. Essentially, it stabilizes at its set point, said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, MPA, MBA, an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
 

‘Tug of War’

Every study of weight loss drugs done over the past 40 years or so shows a plateau, Dr. Stanford told this news organization. “If you look at the phentermine/topiramate studies, there’s a plateau. If you look at the bupropion/naltrexone studies, there’s a plateau. Or if we look at bariatric surgery, there’s a plateau. And it’s the same for the newer GLP-1 drugs.”

The reason? “It really depends on where the body gets to,” Dr. Stanford said. “The body knows what it needs to do to maintain itself, and the brain knows where it’s supposed to be. And when you lose weight and reach what you feel is a lower set point, the body resists.”

When the body goes below its set point, the hunger hormone ghrelin, which is housed in the brain, gets reactivated and gradually starts to reemerge, she explained. GLP-1, which is housed in the distal portion of the small intestine and in the colon, also starts to reemerge over time.

“It becomes kind of a tug of war” between the body and whatever weight loss strategy is being implemented, from drugs to surgery to lifestyle changes, Dr. Stanford said. “The patient will start to notice changes in how their body is responding. Usually, they’ll say they don’t feel like the treatment is working the same. But the treatment is working the same as it’s always been working — except their body is now acclimated to it.”

Anne L. Peters, MD, CDE, professor and clinical scholar, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and director, agreed that in the simplest terms, a plateau occurs because “the body becomes more and more used to” the weight loss intervention.

However, when you lose weight, you lose both fat mass and lean body mass, and lean body mass is the metabolically active part of your body, explained Dr. Peters. “That’s what burns and basically makes up your basal metabolic rate.”

With weight loss, the metabolism slows down, she said. If patients need 2000 calories a day to survive at a certain weight and then lose 50 pounds, they may then need only a 1000 calories a day. “With any obesity treatment, you reach a point at which your metabolic rate and your daily caloric requirements become equal, and you stop losing weight, even though your daily caloric requirement is less than it was when your weight was higher.”
 

Managing the Plateau

Several strategies can be used to help patients break through a plateau. One is to try multiple weight loss agents with different targets — something often done in the real world, Dr. Stanford said. “You don’t see this in the studies, which are focused on just one drug, but many of our patients are on combination therapy. They’re on a GLP-1 drug plus phentermine/topiramate plus metformin, and more. They’re usually on three, four, five drugs, similar to what we would see with resistant hypertension.”

If a patient plateaus on a GLP-1 drug, Dr. Stanford might add phentermine. When the patient reaches a plateau on phentermine, she would switch again to another agent. “The goal is to use agents that treat different receptors in the brain,” she said. “You would never use two GLP-1 agonists; you would use the GLP-1, and then something that treats norepinephrine, for example.”

At the same time, Dr. Peters noted, “try to get them off the drugs that cause weight gain, like insulin and sulfonylurea agents.”

Tapering the GLP-1 dose can also help, Dr. Peters said. However, she added, “If I’m using a GLP-1 drug for type 2 diabetes, it’s different than if I’m using it just for weight loss. With type 2 diabetes, if you taper too much, the blood sugar and weight will go back up, so you need to reach a balance.”

Dr. Peters has successfully tapered patients from a 2-mg dose down to 1 mg. She has also changed the strategy for some — ie, the patient takes the drug every other week instead of every week. “I even have a patient or two who just take it once a month and that seems to be enough,” she said. “You want to help them be at the dose that maintains their weight and keeps them healthy with the least possible medication.”

Emphasizing lifestyle changes is also important, she said. Although resistance training won’t necessarily help with weight loss, “it’s critical to maintaining lean body mass. If people keep losing and regaining weight, they’re going to lose more and more lean body mass and gain the weight back primarily as fat mass. So, their exercise should include about half aerobic activity and half resistance training.”
 

Long-term Journey

Setting appropriate expectations is a key part of helping patients accept and deal with a plateau. “This is long-term, lifelong journey,” Dr. Stanford said. “We need to think about obesity as a complex, multifactorial chronic disease, like we think about hypertension or type 2 diabetes or hyperlipidemia.”

Furthermore, and in keeping with that perspective, emerging evidence is demonstrating that GLP-1 drugs also have important nonglycemic benefits that can be achieved and maintained, Dr. Peters said. “Obviously weight loss matters, and weight loss is good for you if you’re overweight or obese. But now we know that GLP-1 drugs have wonderful benefits for the heart as well as renal function.” These are reasons to continue the drugs even in the face of a plateau.

One of Dr. Peters’ patients, a physician with type 2 diabetes, had “fought with her weight her whole life. She’s been on one or another GLP-1 drug for more than 15 years, and while none seem to impact her weight, she’s gone from having relatively poorly controlled to now beautifully controlled diabetes,” Dr. Peters said. “Even if she hasn’t lost, she’s maintained her weight, a benefit since people tend to gain weight as they get older, and she hasn’t gained.”

Another patient was disabled, on oxygen, and had recurrent pulmonary embolisms. “She weighed 420 pounds, and I put her on semaglutide because she was too sick to be considered for bariatric surgery.” When that didn’t work, Dr. Peters switched her to tirzepatide, gradually increasing the dose; the patient lost 80 pounds, her emboli are gone, she can walk down the street, and went back to work.

“Part of why she could do that is that she started exercising,” Dr. Peters noted. “She felt so much better from the drug-related weight loss that she began to do things that help enhance weight loss. She became happier because she was no longer homebound.”

This points to another element that can help patients break through a plateau over time, Dr. Peters said — namely, behavioral health. “The more people lose weight, the more they feel better about themselves, and that may mean that they take better care of themselves. The psychological part of this journey is as important as anything else. Not everyone has the same response to these agents, and there are all sorts of issues behind why people are overweight that physicians can’t ignore.

“So, in addition to managing the drugs and lifestyle, it’s important to make sure that people access the behavioral health help they need, and that once they break through a plateau, they don’t develop an eating disorder or go to the opposite extreme and become too thin, which has happened with some of my patients,” she said. “We need to remember that we’re not just giving patients a miraculous weight loss. We’re helping them to be healthier, mentally as well as physically.”

Dr. Stanford disclosed that she had been a consultant for Calibrate, GoodRx, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Vida Health, Life Force, Ilant Health, Melli Cell, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters disclosed that she had been a consultant for Vertex, Medscape Medical News, and Lilly; received funding from Abbott and Insulet; and had stock options in Omada Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There’s no question that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists represent a major advance in the treatment of obesity for patients with or without diabetes. In clinical trials, participants lost 15%-20% of their body weight, depending on the drug.

But studies also have shown that once people stop taking these drugs — either by choice, because of shortage, or lack of access — they regain most, if not all, the weight they lost.

Arguably more frustrating is the fact that those who continue on the drug eventually reach a plateau, at which point, the body seemingly stubbornly refuses to lose more weight. Essentially, it stabilizes at its set point, said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, MPA, MBA, an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
 

‘Tug of War’

Every study of weight loss drugs done over the past 40 years or so shows a plateau, Dr. Stanford told this news organization. “If you look at the phentermine/topiramate studies, there’s a plateau. If you look at the bupropion/naltrexone studies, there’s a plateau. Or if we look at bariatric surgery, there’s a plateau. And it’s the same for the newer GLP-1 drugs.”

The reason? “It really depends on where the body gets to,” Dr. Stanford said. “The body knows what it needs to do to maintain itself, and the brain knows where it’s supposed to be. And when you lose weight and reach what you feel is a lower set point, the body resists.”

When the body goes below its set point, the hunger hormone ghrelin, which is housed in the brain, gets reactivated and gradually starts to reemerge, she explained. GLP-1, which is housed in the distal portion of the small intestine and in the colon, also starts to reemerge over time.

“It becomes kind of a tug of war” between the body and whatever weight loss strategy is being implemented, from drugs to surgery to lifestyle changes, Dr. Stanford said. “The patient will start to notice changes in how their body is responding. Usually, they’ll say they don’t feel like the treatment is working the same. But the treatment is working the same as it’s always been working — except their body is now acclimated to it.”

Anne L. Peters, MD, CDE, professor and clinical scholar, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and director, agreed that in the simplest terms, a plateau occurs because “the body becomes more and more used to” the weight loss intervention.

However, when you lose weight, you lose both fat mass and lean body mass, and lean body mass is the metabolically active part of your body, explained Dr. Peters. “That’s what burns and basically makes up your basal metabolic rate.”

With weight loss, the metabolism slows down, she said. If patients need 2000 calories a day to survive at a certain weight and then lose 50 pounds, they may then need only a 1000 calories a day. “With any obesity treatment, you reach a point at which your metabolic rate and your daily caloric requirements become equal, and you stop losing weight, even though your daily caloric requirement is less than it was when your weight was higher.”
 

Managing the Plateau

Several strategies can be used to help patients break through a plateau. One is to try multiple weight loss agents with different targets — something often done in the real world, Dr. Stanford said. “You don’t see this in the studies, which are focused on just one drug, but many of our patients are on combination therapy. They’re on a GLP-1 drug plus phentermine/topiramate plus metformin, and more. They’re usually on three, four, five drugs, similar to what we would see with resistant hypertension.”

If a patient plateaus on a GLP-1 drug, Dr. Stanford might add phentermine. When the patient reaches a plateau on phentermine, she would switch again to another agent. “The goal is to use agents that treat different receptors in the brain,” she said. “You would never use two GLP-1 agonists; you would use the GLP-1, and then something that treats norepinephrine, for example.”

At the same time, Dr. Peters noted, “try to get them off the drugs that cause weight gain, like insulin and sulfonylurea agents.”

Tapering the GLP-1 dose can also help, Dr. Peters said. However, she added, “If I’m using a GLP-1 drug for type 2 diabetes, it’s different than if I’m using it just for weight loss. With type 2 diabetes, if you taper too much, the blood sugar and weight will go back up, so you need to reach a balance.”

Dr. Peters has successfully tapered patients from a 2-mg dose down to 1 mg. She has also changed the strategy for some — ie, the patient takes the drug every other week instead of every week. “I even have a patient or two who just take it once a month and that seems to be enough,” she said. “You want to help them be at the dose that maintains their weight and keeps them healthy with the least possible medication.”

Emphasizing lifestyle changes is also important, she said. Although resistance training won’t necessarily help with weight loss, “it’s critical to maintaining lean body mass. If people keep losing and regaining weight, they’re going to lose more and more lean body mass and gain the weight back primarily as fat mass. So, their exercise should include about half aerobic activity and half resistance training.”
 

Long-term Journey

Setting appropriate expectations is a key part of helping patients accept and deal with a plateau. “This is long-term, lifelong journey,” Dr. Stanford said. “We need to think about obesity as a complex, multifactorial chronic disease, like we think about hypertension or type 2 diabetes or hyperlipidemia.”

Furthermore, and in keeping with that perspective, emerging evidence is demonstrating that GLP-1 drugs also have important nonglycemic benefits that can be achieved and maintained, Dr. Peters said. “Obviously weight loss matters, and weight loss is good for you if you’re overweight or obese. But now we know that GLP-1 drugs have wonderful benefits for the heart as well as renal function.” These are reasons to continue the drugs even in the face of a plateau.

One of Dr. Peters’ patients, a physician with type 2 diabetes, had “fought with her weight her whole life. She’s been on one or another GLP-1 drug for more than 15 years, and while none seem to impact her weight, she’s gone from having relatively poorly controlled to now beautifully controlled diabetes,” Dr. Peters said. “Even if she hasn’t lost, she’s maintained her weight, a benefit since people tend to gain weight as they get older, and she hasn’t gained.”

Another patient was disabled, on oxygen, and had recurrent pulmonary embolisms. “She weighed 420 pounds, and I put her on semaglutide because she was too sick to be considered for bariatric surgery.” When that didn’t work, Dr. Peters switched her to tirzepatide, gradually increasing the dose; the patient lost 80 pounds, her emboli are gone, she can walk down the street, and went back to work.

“Part of why she could do that is that she started exercising,” Dr. Peters noted. “She felt so much better from the drug-related weight loss that she began to do things that help enhance weight loss. She became happier because she was no longer homebound.”

This points to another element that can help patients break through a plateau over time, Dr. Peters said — namely, behavioral health. “The more people lose weight, the more they feel better about themselves, and that may mean that they take better care of themselves. The psychological part of this journey is as important as anything else. Not everyone has the same response to these agents, and there are all sorts of issues behind why people are overweight that physicians can’t ignore.

“So, in addition to managing the drugs and lifestyle, it’s important to make sure that people access the behavioral health help they need, and that once they break through a plateau, they don’t develop an eating disorder or go to the opposite extreme and become too thin, which has happened with some of my patients,” she said. “We need to remember that we’re not just giving patients a miraculous weight loss. We’re helping them to be healthier, mentally as well as physically.”

Dr. Stanford disclosed that she had been a consultant for Calibrate, GoodRx, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Vida Health, Life Force, Ilant Health, Melli Cell, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters disclosed that she had been a consultant for Vertex, Medscape Medical News, and Lilly; received funding from Abbott and Insulet; and had stock options in Omada Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Oneirogens are substances that produce or enhance dreamlike states of consciousness—could one of those, ibogaine, be key to relieving the sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in veterans?

An extract from the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, an African shrub, ibogaine has both pharmacological and psychological effects. Acting on opioid receptors and the serotonin and dopamine systems, it can relieve withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings—reportedly, often, in just a few hours—and reduce the risk of regular use. The results can last for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

In the US, ibogaine is a Schedule I drug. Few controlled studies of ibogaine are available; most data come from anecdotal reports and case studies. Clinical research into ibogaine stalled due to legal restrictions that come with a Schedule I drug, as well as concerns about possible cardiac consequences. For example, some reports have described QT interval prolongation, with instances of subsequent fatal arrhythmia.  

That may change now, with findings from the Magnesium–Ibogaine: the Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol (MISTIC), which took place at a treatment center in Mexico. Researchers from Stanford School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System combined prophylactic intravenous magnesium with ibogaine, in hopes of mitigating the cardiac risks. Magnesium supplementation has been shown to protect against QT interval prolongation when coadministered with medications that ordinarily would have such an effect.

The researchers studied 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) who had predominantly mild TBI. Of those, 15 participants met the criteria for major depressive disorder, 14 for an anxiety disorder, and 23 for PTSD; 19 had past suicidal ideation and 7 had attempted suicide.

Special Operations Forces, the researchers note, are “deployed at a greater pace and to higher intensity combat than conventional military, exposing them to greater allostatic load and risk of injury, including from blast exposure.” This, they say, may result in a “unique pattern” of physical, cognitive, behavioral, psychiatric, and endocrine-related problems across several domains.

Participants received a mean (SD) of 12.1 (1.2) mg kg^-1 of oral ibogaine. The researchers assessed changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. They also assessed changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

The treatment significantly improved functioning both immediately and at 1 month after treatment and PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 1 month after treatment. There were no unexpected or serious treatment-emergent adverse effects, nor were there instances of bradycardia, tachycardia, clinically meaningful QT prolongation, or hemodynamic instability. All participants experienced transient cerebellar signs, such as mild ataxia and intention tremor, that resolved within 24 hours. While experiencing oneirogenic effects, 12 participants were treated for headache, 7 for nausea, 3 for anxiety, 2 for hypertension, and 1 for insomnia. 

At 1 month, suicidal ideation had declined from 47% to 7%—a statistically significant change. “Given the alarming rates of suicide in veterans, as well as evidence that military-related TBI increases the risk of suicide,” the researchers say, “the substantial reduction in SI that we observed—which must be interpreted cautiously as an exploratory analysis—is noteworthy.” TBI also is associated with increased impulsivity, a well-known risk factor for suicide, they note. MISTIC resulted in a measurable improvement in cognitive inhibition.

Results of a neuropsychological battery indicated statistically significant improvements in processing speed and executive functioning (including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, phonemic fluency, and working memory), both immediately after treatment and at 1 month. No declines were noted across any performance domain.

Interestingly, mean performances on these tests moved from the average to the high average score range relative to same-age peers and, in all but one instance, phonemic fluency was high average at baseline and improved to the superior range relative to same-age peers at the 1-month follow-up. Learning and memory tests showed a significant improvement in visual memory and verbal memory. Sustained attention showed a significant improvement in accuracy (detection) and a weak but significant slowing of reaction time, consistent with a prioritization of accuracy over speed and reduced impulsivity.

In a Scientific American article, lead researcher Nolan Williams said he suspects the powerful effects of psychedelics have to do with their “profound ability to increase plasticity in the brain” by “bringing it back to a more juvenile state where reorganization can occur.” People often experience a life review that appears in their minds almost like a slideshow. “It somehow drives a particular sort of psychological phenomenon that you don’t achieve through guidance,” Williams said.

The data from the MISTIC trial in Mexico may spur more research in the US. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Joe Biden last December, authorizes service members diagnosed with PTSD or TBI to take part in clinical studies of any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.”

“It’s all really timely,” Williams said. “From my perspective, we should have some traction to make a strong argument that the risk-benefit is right.”

Oneirogens are substances that produce or enhance dreamlike states of consciousness—could one of those, ibogaine, be key to relieving the sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in veterans?

An extract from the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, an African shrub, ibogaine has both pharmacological and psychological effects. Acting on opioid receptors and the serotonin and dopamine systems, it can relieve withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings—reportedly, often, in just a few hours—and reduce the risk of regular use. The results can last for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

In the US, ibogaine is a Schedule I drug. Few controlled studies of ibogaine are available; most data come from anecdotal reports and case studies. Clinical research into ibogaine stalled due to legal restrictions that come with a Schedule I drug, as well as concerns about possible cardiac consequences. For example, some reports have described QT interval prolongation, with instances of subsequent fatal arrhythmia.  

That may change now, with findings from the Magnesium–Ibogaine: the Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol (MISTIC), which took place at a treatment center in Mexico. Researchers from Stanford School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System combined prophylactic intravenous magnesium with ibogaine, in hopes of mitigating the cardiac risks. Magnesium supplementation has been shown to protect against QT interval prolongation when coadministered with medications that ordinarily would have such an effect.

The researchers studied 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) who had predominantly mild TBI. Of those, 15 participants met the criteria for major depressive disorder, 14 for an anxiety disorder, and 23 for PTSD; 19 had past suicidal ideation and 7 had attempted suicide.

Special Operations Forces, the researchers note, are “deployed at a greater pace and to higher intensity combat than conventional military, exposing them to greater allostatic load and risk of injury, including from blast exposure.” This, they say, may result in a “unique pattern” of physical, cognitive, behavioral, psychiatric, and endocrine-related problems across several domains.

Participants received a mean (SD) of 12.1 (1.2) mg kg^-1 of oral ibogaine. The researchers assessed changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. They also assessed changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

The treatment significantly improved functioning both immediately and at 1 month after treatment and PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 1 month after treatment. There were no unexpected or serious treatment-emergent adverse effects, nor were there instances of bradycardia, tachycardia, clinically meaningful QT prolongation, or hemodynamic instability. All participants experienced transient cerebellar signs, such as mild ataxia and intention tremor, that resolved within 24 hours. While experiencing oneirogenic effects, 12 participants were treated for headache, 7 for nausea, 3 for anxiety, 2 for hypertension, and 1 for insomnia. 

At 1 month, suicidal ideation had declined from 47% to 7%—a statistically significant change. “Given the alarming rates of suicide in veterans, as well as evidence that military-related TBI increases the risk of suicide,” the researchers say, “the substantial reduction in SI that we observed—which must be interpreted cautiously as an exploratory analysis—is noteworthy.” TBI also is associated with increased impulsivity, a well-known risk factor for suicide, they note. MISTIC resulted in a measurable improvement in cognitive inhibition.

Results of a neuropsychological battery indicated statistically significant improvements in processing speed and executive functioning (including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, phonemic fluency, and working memory), both immediately after treatment and at 1 month. No declines were noted across any performance domain.

Interestingly, mean performances on these tests moved from the average to the high average score range relative to same-age peers and, in all but one instance, phonemic fluency was high average at baseline and improved to the superior range relative to same-age peers at the 1-month follow-up. Learning and memory tests showed a significant improvement in visual memory and verbal memory. Sustained attention showed a significant improvement in accuracy (detection) and a weak but significant slowing of reaction time, consistent with a prioritization of accuracy over speed and reduced impulsivity.

In a Scientific American article, lead researcher Nolan Williams said he suspects the powerful effects of psychedelics have to do with their “profound ability to increase plasticity in the brain” by “bringing it back to a more juvenile state where reorganization can occur.” People often experience a life review that appears in their minds almost like a slideshow. “It somehow drives a particular sort of psychological phenomenon that you don’t achieve through guidance,” Williams said.

The data from the MISTIC trial in Mexico may spur more research in the US. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Joe Biden last December, authorizes service members diagnosed with PTSD or TBI to take part in clinical studies of any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.”

“It’s all really timely,” Williams said. “From my perspective, we should have some traction to make a strong argument that the risk-benefit is right.”

Oneirogens are substances that produce or enhance dreamlike states of consciousness—could one of those, ibogaine, be key to relieving the sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in veterans?

An extract from the root bark of Tabernanthe iboga, an African shrub, ibogaine has both pharmacological and psychological effects. Acting on opioid receptors and the serotonin and dopamine systems, it can relieve withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings—reportedly, often, in just a few hours—and reduce the risk of regular use. The results can last for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

In the US, ibogaine is a Schedule I drug. Few controlled studies of ibogaine are available; most data come from anecdotal reports and case studies. Clinical research into ibogaine stalled due to legal restrictions that come with a Schedule I drug, as well as concerns about possible cardiac consequences. For example, some reports have described QT interval prolongation, with instances of subsequent fatal arrhythmia.  

That may change now, with findings from the Magnesium–Ibogaine: the Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol (MISTIC), which took place at a treatment center in Mexico. Researchers from Stanford School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System combined prophylactic intravenous magnesium with ibogaine, in hopes of mitigating the cardiac risks. Magnesium supplementation has been shown to protect against QT interval prolongation when coadministered with medications that ordinarily would have such an effect.

The researchers studied 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) who had predominantly mild TBI. Of those, 15 participants met the criteria for major depressive disorder, 14 for an anxiety disorder, and 23 for PTSD; 19 had past suicidal ideation and 7 had attempted suicide.

Special Operations Forces, the researchers note, are “deployed at a greater pace and to higher intensity combat than conventional military, exposing them to greater allostatic load and risk of injury, including from blast exposure.” This, they say, may result in a “unique pattern” of physical, cognitive, behavioral, psychiatric, and endocrine-related problems across several domains.

Participants received a mean (SD) of 12.1 (1.2) mg kg^-1 of oral ibogaine. The researchers assessed changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after treatment. They also assessed changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.

The treatment significantly improved functioning both immediately and at 1 month after treatment and PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 1 month after treatment. There were no unexpected or serious treatment-emergent adverse effects, nor were there instances of bradycardia, tachycardia, clinically meaningful QT prolongation, or hemodynamic instability. All participants experienced transient cerebellar signs, such as mild ataxia and intention tremor, that resolved within 24 hours. While experiencing oneirogenic effects, 12 participants were treated for headache, 7 for nausea, 3 for anxiety, 2 for hypertension, and 1 for insomnia. 

At 1 month, suicidal ideation had declined from 47% to 7%—a statistically significant change. “Given the alarming rates of suicide in veterans, as well as evidence that military-related TBI increases the risk of suicide,” the researchers say, “the substantial reduction in SI that we observed—which must be interpreted cautiously as an exploratory analysis—is noteworthy.” TBI also is associated with increased impulsivity, a well-known risk factor for suicide, they note. MISTIC resulted in a measurable improvement in cognitive inhibition.

Results of a neuropsychological battery indicated statistically significant improvements in processing speed and executive functioning (including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, phonemic fluency, and working memory), both immediately after treatment and at 1 month. No declines were noted across any performance domain.

Interestingly, mean performances on these tests moved from the average to the high average score range relative to same-age peers and, in all but one instance, phonemic fluency was high average at baseline and improved to the superior range relative to same-age peers at the 1-month follow-up. Learning and memory tests showed a significant improvement in visual memory and verbal memory. Sustained attention showed a significant improvement in accuracy (detection) and a weak but significant slowing of reaction time, consistent with a prioritization of accuracy over speed and reduced impulsivity.

In a Scientific American article, lead researcher Nolan Williams said he suspects the powerful effects of psychedelics have to do with their “profound ability to increase plasticity in the brain” by “bringing it back to a more juvenile state where reorganization can occur.” People often experience a life review that appears in their minds almost like a slideshow. “It somehow drives a particular sort of psychological phenomenon that you don’t achieve through guidance,” Williams said.

The data from the MISTIC trial in Mexico may spur more research in the US. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Joe Biden last December, authorizes service members diagnosed with PTSD or TBI to take part in clinical studies of any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.”

“It’s all really timely,” Williams said. “From my perspective, we should have some traction to make a strong argument that the risk-benefit is right.”

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) are effective against herpes zoster (HZ) for 4 years after vaccination, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Findings from the prospective cohort study showed that people who received two doses of the vaccine, regardless of when they received their second dose, experienced 79% vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the first year, with effectiveness decreasing to 73% by year 4. By contrast, the rate of effectiveness during the first year was 70% for people who received a single dose, falling to 52% effectiveness by year 4.

The findings also showed that the rate of effectiveness was 65% for those taking corticosteroids.

The study was conducted between 2018 and 2022 using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nine healthcare systems across the country.

Researchers evaluated the incidence of HZ, as determined by a diagnosis and prescription for antiviral medication within 7 days of diagnosis, and monitored RZV status over time.

The findings may quell fears that waiting too long for the second dose reduces the effectiveness of the herpes vaccine, according to Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Vaccine Study Center at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, who led the study.

The long-term efficacy of the vaccine is especially important because older adults are now living much longer than in previous years, according to Alexandra Tien, MD, a family physician at Medical Associates of Rhode Island in Providence.

“People live these days into their 80s and even 90s,” Dr. Tien said. “That’s a large number of years to need protection for, so it’s really important to have a long-lasting vaccine.”

The CDC currently recommends two doses of RZV separated by 2-6 months for patients aged 50 years and older. Adults older than 19 years who are immunocompromised should receive two doses of RZV separated by 1-2 months, the agency said.

According to Dr. Klein, research does not show whether VE for RZV wanes after 4 years. But interim findings from another study following people in clinical trials found VE levels remained high after 7 years.

The risk for HZ increases with age, reaching a lifetime risk of 50% among adults aged 85 years. Complications like postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) — characterized by long-term tingling, numbness, and disabling pain at the site of the rash — can interfere with the quality of life and ability to function in older adults. The CDC estimates that up to 18% of people with shingles experience PHN, and the risk increases with age.

Just like with any other vaccine, patients sometimes have concerns about the potential side effects of RZV, said Dr. Tien. But those effects, such as muscle pain, nausea, and fever, are mild compared to shingles.

“I always tell patients, with any vaccine, immunization is one of the biggest bangs for your buck in healthcare because you’re preventing a problem,” Dr. Tien said.

This study was funded by the CDC through contracts with participating sites. Study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Tien reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) are effective against herpes zoster (HZ) for 4 years after vaccination, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Findings from the prospective cohort study showed that people who received two doses of the vaccine, regardless of when they received their second dose, experienced 79% vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the first year, with effectiveness decreasing to 73% by year 4. By contrast, the rate of effectiveness during the first year was 70% for people who received a single dose, falling to 52% effectiveness by year 4.

The findings also showed that the rate of effectiveness was 65% for those taking corticosteroids.

The study was conducted between 2018 and 2022 using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nine healthcare systems across the country.

Researchers evaluated the incidence of HZ, as determined by a diagnosis and prescription for antiviral medication within 7 days of diagnosis, and monitored RZV status over time.

The findings may quell fears that waiting too long for the second dose reduces the effectiveness of the herpes vaccine, according to Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Vaccine Study Center at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, who led the study.

The long-term efficacy of the vaccine is especially important because older adults are now living much longer than in previous years, according to Alexandra Tien, MD, a family physician at Medical Associates of Rhode Island in Providence.

“People live these days into their 80s and even 90s,” Dr. Tien said. “That’s a large number of years to need protection for, so it’s really important to have a long-lasting vaccine.”

The CDC currently recommends two doses of RZV separated by 2-6 months for patients aged 50 years and older. Adults older than 19 years who are immunocompromised should receive two doses of RZV separated by 1-2 months, the agency said.

According to Dr. Klein, research does not show whether VE for RZV wanes after 4 years. But interim findings from another study following people in clinical trials found VE levels remained high after 7 years.

The risk for HZ increases with age, reaching a lifetime risk of 50% among adults aged 85 years. Complications like postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) — characterized by long-term tingling, numbness, and disabling pain at the site of the rash — can interfere with the quality of life and ability to function in older adults. The CDC estimates that up to 18% of people with shingles experience PHN, and the risk increases with age.

Just like with any other vaccine, patients sometimes have concerns about the potential side effects of RZV, said Dr. Tien. But those effects, such as muscle pain, nausea, and fever, are mild compared to shingles.

“I always tell patients, with any vaccine, immunization is one of the biggest bangs for your buck in healthcare because you’re preventing a problem,” Dr. Tien said.

This study was funded by the CDC through contracts with participating sites. Study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Tien reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) are effective against herpes zoster (HZ) for 4 years after vaccination, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Findings from the prospective cohort study showed that people who received two doses of the vaccine, regardless of when they received their second dose, experienced 79% vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the first year, with effectiveness decreasing to 73% by year 4. By contrast, the rate of effectiveness during the first year was 70% for people who received a single dose, falling to 52% effectiveness by year 4.

The findings also showed that the rate of effectiveness was 65% for those taking corticosteroids.

The study was conducted between 2018 and 2022 using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nine healthcare systems across the country.

Researchers evaluated the incidence of HZ, as determined by a diagnosis and prescription for antiviral medication within 7 days of diagnosis, and monitored RZV status over time.

The findings may quell fears that waiting too long for the second dose reduces the effectiveness of the herpes vaccine, according to Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Vaccine Study Center at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, who led the study.

The long-term efficacy of the vaccine is especially important because older adults are now living much longer than in previous years, according to Alexandra Tien, MD, a family physician at Medical Associates of Rhode Island in Providence.

“People live these days into their 80s and even 90s,” Dr. Tien said. “That’s a large number of years to need protection for, so it’s really important to have a long-lasting vaccine.”

The CDC currently recommends two doses of RZV separated by 2-6 months for patients aged 50 years and older. Adults older than 19 years who are immunocompromised should receive two doses of RZV separated by 1-2 months, the agency said.

According to Dr. Klein, research does not show whether VE for RZV wanes after 4 years. But interim findings from another study following people in clinical trials found VE levels remained high after 7 years.

The risk for HZ increases with age, reaching a lifetime risk of 50% among adults aged 85 years. Complications like postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) — characterized by long-term tingling, numbness, and disabling pain at the site of the rash — can interfere with the quality of life and ability to function in older adults. The CDC estimates that up to 18% of people with shingles experience PHN, and the risk increases with age.

Just like with any other vaccine, patients sometimes have concerns about the potential side effects of RZV, said Dr. Tien. But those effects, such as muscle pain, nausea, and fever, are mild compared to shingles.

“I always tell patients, with any vaccine, immunization is one of the biggest bangs for your buck in healthcare because you’re preventing a problem,” Dr. Tien said.

This study was funded by the CDC through contracts with participating sites. Study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Tien reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You may have never heard of it, but you may have had it. More evidence points to “long flu” being a real phenomenon, with a large study showing symptoms persist at least 4 weeks or more after some people are hospitalized for the flu.

Researchers compared long flu to long COVID-19 and found long flu happened less often and was less severe overall. This difference could be because the flu mostly affects the lungs whereas COVID can affect any number of organ systems in the body.

The investigators were surprised that both long flu and long COVID were linked to a greater burden of health loss, compared to either initial infection.

“I think COVID and long COVID made us realize that infections have long-term consequences, and often the toll of those long-term consequences is much larger than the toll of acute disease,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, senior author of the study and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“I know, having studied long COVID for the past 4 years, I should not be surprised. But I am in awe of what these infections can do to the long-term health of affected individuals,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues Yan Xie, PhD, and Taeyoung Choi, MS, analyzed US Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. They compared 81,280 people hospitalized with COVID to 10,985 people hospitalized with the flu before the COVID pandemic. They checked up to 18 months after initial infections to see who developed long flu or long COVID symptoms.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

It’s an interesting study, said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the Department of Medicine and a hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, NY, who was not part of the research.

“There is a concern with many viruses that you can have long-term consequences,” said Dr. Glatt, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He said the possibility of long-term symptoms with the flu is not new, “but it’s nice to have more data.”

People hospitalized with COVID had a 50% higher risk of death during the study period than people hospitalized with the flu. Put another way, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID, about eight more died than those hospitalized with the flu over the following 18 months. Hospital admissions and admissions to the intensive care unit were also higher in the long COVID group — 20 more people and nine more people, respectively, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID.

More research is needed, Dr. Glatt said. “With many of these viruses, we don’t understand what they do to the body.” A prospective study to see if antiviral treatments make a difference, for example, would be useful, he noted.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues would like to do more studies.

“We need to more deeply understand how and why acute infections cause long-term illness,” he said, noting that he also wants to investigate ways to prevent and treat the long-term effects.

“Much remains to be done, and we are deeply committed to doing our best to develop those answers.”

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

You may have never heard of it, but you may have had it. More evidence points to “long flu” being a real phenomenon, with a large study showing symptoms persist at least 4 weeks or more after some people are hospitalized for the flu.

Researchers compared long flu to long COVID-19 and found long flu happened less often and was less severe overall. This difference could be because the flu mostly affects the lungs whereas COVID can affect any number of organ systems in the body.

The investigators were surprised that both long flu and long COVID were linked to a greater burden of health loss, compared to either initial infection.

“I think COVID and long COVID made us realize that infections have long-term consequences, and often the toll of those long-term consequences is much larger than the toll of acute disease,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, senior author of the study and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“I know, having studied long COVID for the past 4 years, I should not be surprised. But I am in awe of what these infections can do to the long-term health of affected individuals,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues Yan Xie, PhD, and Taeyoung Choi, MS, analyzed US Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. They compared 81,280 people hospitalized with COVID to 10,985 people hospitalized with the flu before the COVID pandemic. They checked up to 18 months after initial infections to see who developed long flu or long COVID symptoms.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

It’s an interesting study, said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the Department of Medicine and a hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, NY, who was not part of the research.

“There is a concern with many viruses that you can have long-term consequences,” said Dr. Glatt, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He said the possibility of long-term symptoms with the flu is not new, “but it’s nice to have more data.”

People hospitalized with COVID had a 50% higher risk of death during the study period than people hospitalized with the flu. Put another way, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID, about eight more died than those hospitalized with the flu over the following 18 months. Hospital admissions and admissions to the intensive care unit were also higher in the long COVID group — 20 more people and nine more people, respectively, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID.

More research is needed, Dr. Glatt said. “With many of these viruses, we don’t understand what they do to the body.” A prospective study to see if antiviral treatments make a difference, for example, would be useful, he noted.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues would like to do more studies.

“We need to more deeply understand how and why acute infections cause long-term illness,” he said, noting that he also wants to investigate ways to prevent and treat the long-term effects.

“Much remains to be done, and we are deeply committed to doing our best to develop those answers.”

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

You may have never heard of it, but you may have had it. More evidence points to “long flu” being a real phenomenon, with a large study showing symptoms persist at least 4 weeks or more after some people are hospitalized for the flu.

Researchers compared long flu to long COVID-19 and found long flu happened less often and was less severe overall. This difference could be because the flu mostly affects the lungs whereas COVID can affect any number of organ systems in the body.

The investigators were surprised that both long flu and long COVID were linked to a greater burden of health loss, compared to either initial infection.

“I think COVID and long COVID made us realize that infections have long-term consequences, and often the toll of those long-term consequences is much larger than the toll of acute disease,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, senior author of the study and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“I know, having studied long COVID for the past 4 years, I should not be surprised. But I am in awe of what these infections can do to the long-term health of affected individuals,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues Yan Xie, PhD, and Taeyoung Choi, MS, analyzed US Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. They compared 81,280 people hospitalized with COVID to 10,985 people hospitalized with the flu before the COVID pandemic. They checked up to 18 months after initial infections to see who developed long flu or long COVID symptoms.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

It’s an interesting study, said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the Department of Medicine and a hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, NY, who was not part of the research.

“There is a concern with many viruses that you can have long-term consequences,” said Dr. Glatt, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He said the possibility of long-term symptoms with the flu is not new, “but it’s nice to have more data.”

People hospitalized with COVID had a 50% higher risk of death during the study period than people hospitalized with the flu. Put another way, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID, about eight more died than those hospitalized with the flu over the following 18 months. Hospital admissions and admissions to the intensive care unit were also higher in the long COVID group — 20 more people and nine more people, respectively, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID.

More research is needed, Dr. Glatt said. “With many of these viruses, we don’t understand what they do to the body.” A prospective study to see if antiviral treatments make a difference, for example, would be useful, he noted.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues would like to do more studies.

“We need to more deeply understand how and why acute infections cause long-term illness,” he said, noting that he also wants to investigate ways to prevent and treat the long-term effects.

“Much remains to be done, and we are deeply committed to doing our best to develop those answers.”

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