Preventive Care

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity performed in the evening is associated with the lowest risk for mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and microvascular disease (MVD) in adults with obesity, including those with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Bouts of moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity are widely recognized to improve cardiometabolic risk factors, but whether morning, afternoon, or evening timing may lead to greater improvements is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed UK Biobank data of 29,836 participants with obesity (body mass index, › 30; mean age, 62.2 years; 53.2% women), including 2995 also diagnosed with T2D, all enrolled in 2006-2010.
• Aerobic activity was defined as bouts lasting ≥ 3 minutes, and the intensity of activity was classified as light, moderate, or vigorous using accelerometer data collected from participants.
• Participants were stratified into the morning (6 a.m. to < 12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m. to < 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to < 12 a.m.) groups based on when > 50% of their total moderate to vigorous activity occurred, and those with no aerobic bouts were considered the reference group.
• The association between the timing of aerobic physical activity and risk for all-cause mortality, CVD (defined as circulatory, such as hypertension), and MVD (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy) was evaluated over a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mortality risk was lowest in the evening moderate to vigorous physical activity group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) and even lower in the T2D subgroup (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76) than in the reference group.
• Mortality risk was lower in the afternoon (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and morning (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) activity groups than in the reference group, but this association was weaker than that observed in the evening activity group.
• The evening moderate to vigorous activity group had a lower risk for CVD (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) and MVD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) than the reference group.
• Among participants with obesity and T2D, moderate to vigorous physical activity in the evening was associated with a lower risk for mortality, CVD, and MVD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “The results of this study emphasize that beyond the total volume of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity], its timing, particularly in the evening, was consistently associated with the lowest risk of mortality relative to other timing windows.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Angelo Sabag, PhD, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this was an observational study, the possibility of reverse causation from prodromal disease and unaccounted confounding factors could not have been ruled out. There was a lag of a median of 5.5 years between the UK Biobank baseline, when covariate measurements were taken, and the accelerometry study. Moreover, the response rate of the UK Biobank was low.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and the National Heart Foundation of Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity performed in the evening is associated with the lowest risk for mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and microvascular disease (MVD) in adults with obesity, including those with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Bouts of moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity are widely recognized to improve cardiometabolic risk factors, but whether morning, afternoon, or evening timing may lead to greater improvements is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed UK Biobank data of 29,836 participants with obesity (body mass index, › 30; mean age, 62.2 years; 53.2% women), including 2995 also diagnosed with T2D, all enrolled in 2006-2010.
• Aerobic activity was defined as bouts lasting ≥ 3 minutes, and the intensity of activity was classified as light, moderate, or vigorous using accelerometer data collected from participants.
• Participants were stratified into the morning (6 a.m. to < 12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m. to < 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to < 12 a.m.) groups based on when > 50% of their total moderate to vigorous activity occurred, and those with no aerobic bouts were considered the reference group.
• The association between the timing of aerobic physical activity and risk for all-cause mortality, CVD (defined as circulatory, such as hypertension), and MVD (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy) was evaluated over a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mortality risk was lowest in the evening moderate to vigorous physical activity group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) and even lower in the T2D subgroup (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76) than in the reference group.
• Mortality risk was lower in the afternoon (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and morning (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) activity groups than in the reference group, but this association was weaker than that observed in the evening activity group.
• The evening moderate to vigorous activity group had a lower risk for CVD (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) and MVD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) than the reference group.
• Among participants with obesity and T2D, moderate to vigorous physical activity in the evening was associated with a lower risk for mortality, CVD, and MVD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “The results of this study emphasize that beyond the total volume of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity], its timing, particularly in the evening, was consistently associated with the lowest risk of mortality relative to other timing windows.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Angelo Sabag, PhD, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this was an observational study, the possibility of reverse causation from prodromal disease and unaccounted confounding factors could not have been ruled out. There was a lag of a median of 5.5 years between the UK Biobank baseline, when covariate measurements were taken, and the accelerometry study. Moreover, the response rate of the UK Biobank was low.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and the National Heart Foundation of Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity performed in the evening is associated with the lowest risk for mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and microvascular disease (MVD) in adults with obesity, including those with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Bouts of moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity are widely recognized to improve cardiometabolic risk factors, but whether morning, afternoon, or evening timing may lead to greater improvements is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed UK Biobank data of 29,836 participants with obesity (body mass index, › 30; mean age, 62.2 years; 53.2% women), including 2995 also diagnosed with T2D, all enrolled in 2006-2010.
• Aerobic activity was defined as bouts lasting ≥ 3 minutes, and the intensity of activity was classified as light, moderate, or vigorous using accelerometer data collected from participants.
• Participants were stratified into the morning (6 a.m. to < 12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m. to < 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to < 12 a.m.) groups based on when > 50% of their total moderate to vigorous activity occurred, and those with no aerobic bouts were considered the reference group.
• The association between the timing of aerobic physical activity and risk for all-cause mortality, CVD (defined as circulatory, such as hypertension), and MVD (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy) was evaluated over a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mortality risk was lowest in the evening moderate to vigorous physical activity group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) and even lower in the T2D subgroup (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76) than in the reference group.
• Mortality risk was lower in the afternoon (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and morning (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) activity groups than in the reference group, but this association was weaker than that observed in the evening activity group.
• The evening moderate to vigorous activity group had a lower risk for CVD (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) and MVD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) than the reference group.
• Among participants with obesity and T2D, moderate to vigorous physical activity in the evening was associated with a lower risk for mortality, CVD, and MVD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “The results of this study emphasize that beyond the total volume of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity], its timing, particularly in the evening, was consistently associated with the lowest risk of mortality relative to other timing windows.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Angelo Sabag, PhD, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this was an observational study, the possibility of reverse causation from prodromal disease and unaccounted confounding factors could not have been ruled out. There was a lag of a median of 5.5 years between the UK Biobank baseline, when covariate measurements were taken, and the accelerometry study. Moreover, the response rate of the UK Biobank was low.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and the National Heart Foundation of Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An algorithm-driven risk assessment embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) helped clinicians reduce inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by 17.4% and 28.4% in patients with UTIs and pneumonia, respectively, according to two related studies published in JAMA.

The randomized control trials included more than 200,000 adult patients with non–life threatening pneumonia or urinary tract infections (UTIs) in 59 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare across the country. 

Researchers analyzed baseline prescribing behaviors over an 18-month period starting in April 2017, and data from a 15-month period of implementation of the new antibiotic system starting in April 2019.

They focused on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics during the first 3 days of hospital admission, before microbiologic test results came back, and when clinicians are likely to err on the side of caution and prescribe one of the drugs, according to lead author Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, associate medical director of epidemiology and infection prevention, infectious diseases at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. 

“When a patient comes in with pneumonia or a UTI, it’s precisely because we are concerned that our patients have a multidrug-resistant organism that we end up using broad-spectrum antibiotics,” she said. 

Despite growing awareness of the need to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, clinicians have still been slow to adopt a more conservative approach to prescribing, Dr. Gohil said. 

“What physicians have been needing is something to hang their hat on, to be able to say, ‘Okay, well, this one’s a low-risk person,’ ” Dr. Gohil said. 

The trials compared the impact of routine antibiotic activities with a stewardship bundle, called INSPIRE (Intelligent Stewardship Prompts to Improve Real-time Empiric Antibiotic Selection). 

Both groups received educational materials, quarterly coaching calls, prospective evaluations for antibiotic use, and were required to select a reason for prescribing an antibiotic. 

But prescribers in the intervention group took part in monthly coaching calls and feedback reports. In addition, if a clinician ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to treat pneumonia or a UTI outside of the intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission, an EHR prompt would pop up. The pop-up suggested a standard-spectrum antibiotic instead if patient risk for developing a multidrug-resistant (MDRO) version of either condition was less than 10%. 

An algorithm used data from the EHR calculated risk, using factors like patient demographics and history and MDRO infection at the community and hospital level. 

Prescribing rates were based on the number of days a patient received a broad-spectrum antibiotic during the first 72 hours of hospitalization. 

For the UTI intervention group, rates dropped by 17.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and 28.4% reduction in the pneumonia group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001). 

“We cannot know which element — prompt, education, or feedback — worked, but the data suggests that the prompt was the main driver,” Dr. Gohil said.

“In antibiotic stewardship, we have learned not only that doctors want to do the right thing, but that we as stewards need to make it easy for them do the right thing,” said Paul Pottinger, MD, professor of medicine at the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. 

The prompt “is your easy button,” said Dr. Pottinger, who was not involved with either study. “The researchers made it simple, fast, and straightforward, so people don’t have to think about it too much.”

The studies showed similar safety outcomes for the control and intervention groups. Among patients with a UTI, those in the control group were transferred to the ICU after an average of 6.6 days compared to 7 days in the intervention group. Among patients with pneumonia, the average days to ICU transfer were 6.5 for the control group and 7.1 for the intervention group. 

“This study is a proof of concept that physicians want to do the right thing and are willing to trust this information,” Dr. Pottinger said. “And this also shows us that this tool can be refined and made even more precise over time.” 

The study was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was led by the University of California Irvine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, and HCA Healthcare System. Various authors report funding and support from entities outside the submitted work. The full list can be found with the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An algorithm-driven risk assessment embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) helped clinicians reduce inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by 17.4% and 28.4% in patients with UTIs and pneumonia, respectively, according to two related studies published in JAMA.

The randomized control trials included more than 200,000 adult patients with non–life threatening pneumonia or urinary tract infections (UTIs) in 59 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare across the country. 

Researchers analyzed baseline prescribing behaviors over an 18-month period starting in April 2017, and data from a 15-month period of implementation of the new antibiotic system starting in April 2019.

They focused on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics during the first 3 days of hospital admission, before microbiologic test results came back, and when clinicians are likely to err on the side of caution and prescribe one of the drugs, according to lead author Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, associate medical director of epidemiology and infection prevention, infectious diseases at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. 

“When a patient comes in with pneumonia or a UTI, it’s precisely because we are concerned that our patients have a multidrug-resistant organism that we end up using broad-spectrum antibiotics,” she said. 

Despite growing awareness of the need to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, clinicians have still been slow to adopt a more conservative approach to prescribing, Dr. Gohil said. 

“What physicians have been needing is something to hang their hat on, to be able to say, ‘Okay, well, this one’s a low-risk person,’ ” Dr. Gohil said. 

The trials compared the impact of routine antibiotic activities with a stewardship bundle, called INSPIRE (Intelligent Stewardship Prompts to Improve Real-time Empiric Antibiotic Selection). 

Both groups received educational materials, quarterly coaching calls, prospective evaluations for antibiotic use, and were required to select a reason for prescribing an antibiotic. 

But prescribers in the intervention group took part in monthly coaching calls and feedback reports. In addition, if a clinician ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to treat pneumonia or a UTI outside of the intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission, an EHR prompt would pop up. The pop-up suggested a standard-spectrum antibiotic instead if patient risk for developing a multidrug-resistant (MDRO) version of either condition was less than 10%. 

An algorithm used data from the EHR calculated risk, using factors like patient demographics and history and MDRO infection at the community and hospital level. 

Prescribing rates were based on the number of days a patient received a broad-spectrum antibiotic during the first 72 hours of hospitalization. 

For the UTI intervention group, rates dropped by 17.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and 28.4% reduction in the pneumonia group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001). 

“We cannot know which element — prompt, education, or feedback — worked, but the data suggests that the prompt was the main driver,” Dr. Gohil said.

“In antibiotic stewardship, we have learned not only that doctors want to do the right thing, but that we as stewards need to make it easy for them do the right thing,” said Paul Pottinger, MD, professor of medicine at the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. 

The prompt “is your easy button,” said Dr. Pottinger, who was not involved with either study. “The researchers made it simple, fast, and straightforward, so people don’t have to think about it too much.”

The studies showed similar safety outcomes for the control and intervention groups. Among patients with a UTI, those in the control group were transferred to the ICU after an average of 6.6 days compared to 7 days in the intervention group. Among patients with pneumonia, the average days to ICU transfer were 6.5 for the control group and 7.1 for the intervention group. 

“This study is a proof of concept that physicians want to do the right thing and are willing to trust this information,” Dr. Pottinger said. “And this also shows us that this tool can be refined and made even more precise over time.” 

The study was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was led by the University of California Irvine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, and HCA Healthcare System. Various authors report funding and support from entities outside the submitted work. The full list can be found with the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An algorithm-driven risk assessment embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) helped clinicians reduce inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by 17.4% and 28.4% in patients with UTIs and pneumonia, respectively, according to two related studies published in JAMA.

The randomized control trials included more than 200,000 adult patients with non–life threatening pneumonia or urinary tract infections (UTIs) in 59 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare across the country. 

Researchers analyzed baseline prescribing behaviors over an 18-month period starting in April 2017, and data from a 15-month period of implementation of the new antibiotic system starting in April 2019.

They focused on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics during the first 3 days of hospital admission, before microbiologic test results came back, and when clinicians are likely to err on the side of caution and prescribe one of the drugs, according to lead author Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, associate medical director of epidemiology and infection prevention, infectious diseases at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. 

“When a patient comes in with pneumonia or a UTI, it’s precisely because we are concerned that our patients have a multidrug-resistant organism that we end up using broad-spectrum antibiotics,” she said. 

Despite growing awareness of the need to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, clinicians have still been slow to adopt a more conservative approach to prescribing, Dr. Gohil said. 

“What physicians have been needing is something to hang their hat on, to be able to say, ‘Okay, well, this one’s a low-risk person,’ ” Dr. Gohil said. 

The trials compared the impact of routine antibiotic activities with a stewardship bundle, called INSPIRE (Intelligent Stewardship Prompts to Improve Real-time Empiric Antibiotic Selection). 

Both groups received educational materials, quarterly coaching calls, prospective evaluations for antibiotic use, and were required to select a reason for prescribing an antibiotic. 

But prescribers in the intervention group took part in monthly coaching calls and feedback reports. In addition, if a clinician ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to treat pneumonia or a UTI outside of the intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission, an EHR prompt would pop up. The pop-up suggested a standard-spectrum antibiotic instead if patient risk for developing a multidrug-resistant (MDRO) version of either condition was less than 10%. 

An algorithm used data from the EHR calculated risk, using factors like patient demographics and history and MDRO infection at the community and hospital level. 

Prescribing rates were based on the number of days a patient received a broad-spectrum antibiotic during the first 72 hours of hospitalization. 

For the UTI intervention group, rates dropped by 17.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and 28.4% reduction in the pneumonia group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001). 

“We cannot know which element — prompt, education, or feedback — worked, but the data suggests that the prompt was the main driver,” Dr. Gohil said.

“In antibiotic stewardship, we have learned not only that doctors want to do the right thing, but that we as stewards need to make it easy for them do the right thing,” said Paul Pottinger, MD, professor of medicine at the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. 

The prompt “is your easy button,” said Dr. Pottinger, who was not involved with either study. “The researchers made it simple, fast, and straightforward, so people don’t have to think about it too much.”

The studies showed similar safety outcomes for the control and intervention groups. Among patients with a UTI, those in the control group were transferred to the ICU after an average of 6.6 days compared to 7 days in the intervention group. Among patients with pneumonia, the average days to ICU transfer were 6.5 for the control group and 7.1 for the intervention group. 

“This study is a proof of concept that physicians want to do the right thing and are willing to trust this information,” Dr. Pottinger said. “And this also shows us that this tool can be refined and made even more precise over time.” 

The study was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was led by the University of California Irvine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, and HCA Healthcare System. Various authors report funding and support from entities outside the submitted work. The full list can be found with the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Caring for older adults was one of the most rewarding parts of my years practicing as a clinical cardiologist. I appreciated their wisdom, humor, and, very often, their respect and appreciation for physicians. It was always upsetting to see them suffer a mild fall or episode of atrial fibrillation and recognize that it could have major health ramifications.

Life expectancy has improved dramatically, but longer lifespans also mean more opportunity for illness, pain, chronic disease, and dependence on others. Having successfully helped older adults live longer, the question now becomes, how can we, as physicians, add more life to those years? How can we increase their “healthspans”?

That is not just a question for geriatric care. With fewer than two practicing geriatricians for every 10,000 older individuals, it is obvious that geriatricians cannot shoulder this responsibility alone. Almost all primary care physicians and subspecialists should prepare to care for older individuals and help them age healthfully.

Susan Friedman, MD, a board-certified geriatrics and lifestyle medicine clinician at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, reviewed the literature on the connection between lifestyle and healthy aging and concluded that the integration of lifestyle medicine into medical care for older adults is key to compressing morbidity. The pillars of lifestyle medicine — optimal nutrition, physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances — both individually or as a sum are associated with less chronic disease, improved engagement in life, better physical and cognitive function, less frailty, and less sarcopenia. Framing discussions with patients around the six pillars of lifestyle medicine can be an effective strategy.
 

Optimal Nutrition

For a variety of reasons, older adults, especially those living alone, often lose the desire to prepare a nourishing meal. Older adults require different protein intake than younger patients to offset age-related sarcopenia, but helping them select healthy sources of protein is imperative. Both adequate protein consumption and eating patterns high in vegetables, legumes, fruit, and nuts and low in saturated fat, red meat, and processed meat can lower the risk of developing frailty.

Asking a patient to share a 24-hour food recall, and based upon that, resourcing nutritional guidance, a lifestyle medicine program or specialist, and insurance or community resources for food-as-medicine services, is a good first step.
 

Physical Activity

Increasing general physical activity can be a tough ask for many older adults, and joint pain is a common reason they demur. Messaging around targeted exercises to mitigate falls, improve muscle strength, and reduce joint pain may be more appealing. Contemporary research demonstrates that exercise, particularly open-skill exercise that requires quick decisions (such as table tennis) can be powerful. Maintaining cognition, mood enhancement, and independence may also be motivating messages.

The first step is curiosity: What does your patient like to do? Referral to a physical therapist or an exercise specialist to provide stepwise guidance along with resourcing community opportunities can then follow.
 

Restorative Sleep

“I’m old. I don’t need as much sleep.” We’ve probably all heard older patients say this. But the National Sleep Foundation’s report on sleep health and aging indicates that the need to sleep does not decrease with age. The ability to sleep, however, may decline. Assessing and treating disordered sleep is another example of how each lifestyle medicine pillar, such as nutrition and physical activity, is multidimensional and interacts to support the functional integrity of older patients. It’s hard to feel motivated to go for a walk if you lack adequate sleep.
 

Stress Management

Exploring stress with patients can be very revealing. Do they experience stress that energizes and has a positive effect? How much of their day is spent in negatively impactful distress? Chronic stress has been shown to affect immune function in older individuals. Start conversations with your older patients to normalize the importance of stress as a health measure.
 

Positive Social Connections

Loneliness puts individuals at higher risk for heart disease, stroke, and dementia and even increases the risk for premature death by up to 60%. Yet, clinicians and patients rarely discuss social connections during medical appointments. Tools such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale exist for health practitioners to assess and identify patients at risk for loneliness, as do resources to integrate social care into the delivery of healthcare.
 

Avoidance of Risky Substances

Alcohol assessments are not just for younger patients. One study found that 5.6 million adults ages 65 or older engaged in binge drinking in the past month. Because of body changes, the negative effects of alcohol may be greater on older adults, including interactions between alcohol and commonly prescribed medications. 

Conducting a lifestyle assessment is an important way to engage with older patients and allows clinicians to identify opportunities to improve health behaviors, understand obstacles, and support patients to make lifestyle changes. It may uncover ways to remove some of the pill and treatment burdens that older adults often experience. The American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) offers clinical practice resources to support clinicians as well as “Lifestyle Medicine and Food as Medicine Essentials,” a 5.5-hour complimentary CE/CME course on food and lifestyle medicine that introduces clinicians to the therapeutic use of lifestyle medicine. ACLM also offers members interest groups focused on geriatrics, fitness, and mental health, which may be beneficial to clinicians treating older adults.

By engaging with older patients on their lifestyle behaviors, we can ensure that we are doing all we can to help them live longer — and live better.

Dr. Collings is director of lifestyle medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and past president, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Caring for older adults was one of the most rewarding parts of my years practicing as a clinical cardiologist. I appreciated their wisdom, humor, and, very often, their respect and appreciation for physicians. It was always upsetting to see them suffer a mild fall or episode of atrial fibrillation and recognize that it could have major health ramifications.

Life expectancy has improved dramatically, but longer lifespans also mean more opportunity for illness, pain, chronic disease, and dependence on others. Having successfully helped older adults live longer, the question now becomes, how can we, as physicians, add more life to those years? How can we increase their “healthspans”?

That is not just a question for geriatric care. With fewer than two practicing geriatricians for every 10,000 older individuals, it is obvious that geriatricians cannot shoulder this responsibility alone. Almost all primary care physicians and subspecialists should prepare to care for older individuals and help them age healthfully.

Susan Friedman, MD, a board-certified geriatrics and lifestyle medicine clinician at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, reviewed the literature on the connection between lifestyle and healthy aging and concluded that the integration of lifestyle medicine into medical care for older adults is key to compressing morbidity. The pillars of lifestyle medicine — optimal nutrition, physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances — both individually or as a sum are associated with less chronic disease, improved engagement in life, better physical and cognitive function, less frailty, and less sarcopenia. Framing discussions with patients around the six pillars of lifestyle medicine can be an effective strategy.
 

Optimal Nutrition

For a variety of reasons, older adults, especially those living alone, often lose the desire to prepare a nourishing meal. Older adults require different protein intake than younger patients to offset age-related sarcopenia, but helping them select healthy sources of protein is imperative. Both adequate protein consumption and eating patterns high in vegetables, legumes, fruit, and nuts and low in saturated fat, red meat, and processed meat can lower the risk of developing frailty.

Asking a patient to share a 24-hour food recall, and based upon that, resourcing nutritional guidance, a lifestyle medicine program or specialist, and insurance or community resources for food-as-medicine services, is a good first step.
 

Physical Activity

Increasing general physical activity can be a tough ask for many older adults, and joint pain is a common reason they demur. Messaging around targeted exercises to mitigate falls, improve muscle strength, and reduce joint pain may be more appealing. Contemporary research demonstrates that exercise, particularly open-skill exercise that requires quick decisions (such as table tennis) can be powerful. Maintaining cognition, mood enhancement, and independence may also be motivating messages.

The first step is curiosity: What does your patient like to do? Referral to a physical therapist or an exercise specialist to provide stepwise guidance along with resourcing community opportunities can then follow.
 

Restorative Sleep

“I’m old. I don’t need as much sleep.” We’ve probably all heard older patients say this. But the National Sleep Foundation’s report on sleep health and aging indicates that the need to sleep does not decrease with age. The ability to sleep, however, may decline. Assessing and treating disordered sleep is another example of how each lifestyle medicine pillar, such as nutrition and physical activity, is multidimensional and interacts to support the functional integrity of older patients. It’s hard to feel motivated to go for a walk if you lack adequate sleep.
 

Stress Management

Exploring stress with patients can be very revealing. Do they experience stress that energizes and has a positive effect? How much of their day is spent in negatively impactful distress? Chronic stress has been shown to affect immune function in older individuals. Start conversations with your older patients to normalize the importance of stress as a health measure.
 

Positive Social Connections

Loneliness puts individuals at higher risk for heart disease, stroke, and dementia and even increases the risk for premature death by up to 60%. Yet, clinicians and patients rarely discuss social connections during medical appointments. Tools such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale exist for health practitioners to assess and identify patients at risk for loneliness, as do resources to integrate social care into the delivery of healthcare.
 

Avoidance of Risky Substances

Alcohol assessments are not just for younger patients. One study found that 5.6 million adults ages 65 or older engaged in binge drinking in the past month. Because of body changes, the negative effects of alcohol may be greater on older adults, including interactions between alcohol and commonly prescribed medications. 

Conducting a lifestyle assessment is an important way to engage with older patients and allows clinicians to identify opportunities to improve health behaviors, understand obstacles, and support patients to make lifestyle changes. It may uncover ways to remove some of the pill and treatment burdens that older adults often experience. The American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) offers clinical practice resources to support clinicians as well as “Lifestyle Medicine and Food as Medicine Essentials,” a 5.5-hour complimentary CE/CME course on food and lifestyle medicine that introduces clinicians to the therapeutic use of lifestyle medicine. ACLM also offers members interest groups focused on geriatrics, fitness, and mental health, which may be beneficial to clinicians treating older adults.

By engaging with older patients on their lifestyle behaviors, we can ensure that we are doing all we can to help them live longer — and live better.

Dr. Collings is director of lifestyle medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and past president, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Caring for older adults was one of the most rewarding parts of my years practicing as a clinical cardiologist. I appreciated their wisdom, humor, and, very often, their respect and appreciation for physicians. It was always upsetting to see them suffer a mild fall or episode of atrial fibrillation and recognize that it could have major health ramifications.

Life expectancy has improved dramatically, but longer lifespans also mean more opportunity for illness, pain, chronic disease, and dependence on others. Having successfully helped older adults live longer, the question now becomes, how can we, as physicians, add more life to those years? How can we increase their “healthspans”?

That is not just a question for geriatric care. With fewer than two practicing geriatricians for every 10,000 older individuals, it is obvious that geriatricians cannot shoulder this responsibility alone. Almost all primary care physicians and subspecialists should prepare to care for older individuals and help them age healthfully.

Susan Friedman, MD, a board-certified geriatrics and lifestyle medicine clinician at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, reviewed the literature on the connection between lifestyle and healthy aging and concluded that the integration of lifestyle medicine into medical care for older adults is key to compressing morbidity. The pillars of lifestyle medicine — optimal nutrition, physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances — both individually or as a sum are associated with less chronic disease, improved engagement in life, better physical and cognitive function, less frailty, and less sarcopenia. Framing discussions with patients around the six pillars of lifestyle medicine can be an effective strategy.
 

Optimal Nutrition

For a variety of reasons, older adults, especially those living alone, often lose the desire to prepare a nourishing meal. Older adults require different protein intake than younger patients to offset age-related sarcopenia, but helping them select healthy sources of protein is imperative. Both adequate protein consumption and eating patterns high in vegetables, legumes, fruit, and nuts and low in saturated fat, red meat, and processed meat can lower the risk of developing frailty.

Asking a patient to share a 24-hour food recall, and based upon that, resourcing nutritional guidance, a lifestyle medicine program or specialist, and insurance or community resources for food-as-medicine services, is a good first step.
 

Physical Activity

Increasing general physical activity can be a tough ask for many older adults, and joint pain is a common reason they demur. Messaging around targeted exercises to mitigate falls, improve muscle strength, and reduce joint pain may be more appealing. Contemporary research demonstrates that exercise, particularly open-skill exercise that requires quick decisions (such as table tennis) can be powerful. Maintaining cognition, mood enhancement, and independence may also be motivating messages.

The first step is curiosity: What does your patient like to do? Referral to a physical therapist or an exercise specialist to provide stepwise guidance along with resourcing community opportunities can then follow.
 

Restorative Sleep

“I’m old. I don’t need as much sleep.” We’ve probably all heard older patients say this. But the National Sleep Foundation’s report on sleep health and aging indicates that the need to sleep does not decrease with age. The ability to sleep, however, may decline. Assessing and treating disordered sleep is another example of how each lifestyle medicine pillar, such as nutrition and physical activity, is multidimensional and interacts to support the functional integrity of older patients. It’s hard to feel motivated to go for a walk if you lack adequate sleep.
 

Stress Management

Exploring stress with patients can be very revealing. Do they experience stress that energizes and has a positive effect? How much of their day is spent in negatively impactful distress? Chronic stress has been shown to affect immune function in older individuals. Start conversations with your older patients to normalize the importance of stress as a health measure.
 

Positive Social Connections

Loneliness puts individuals at higher risk for heart disease, stroke, and dementia and even increases the risk for premature death by up to 60%. Yet, clinicians and patients rarely discuss social connections during medical appointments. Tools such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale exist for health practitioners to assess and identify patients at risk for loneliness, as do resources to integrate social care into the delivery of healthcare.
 

Avoidance of Risky Substances

Alcohol assessments are not just for younger patients. One study found that 5.6 million adults ages 65 or older engaged in binge drinking in the past month. Because of body changes, the negative effects of alcohol may be greater on older adults, including interactions between alcohol and commonly prescribed medications. 

Conducting a lifestyle assessment is an important way to engage with older patients and allows clinicians to identify opportunities to improve health behaviors, understand obstacles, and support patients to make lifestyle changes. It may uncover ways to remove some of the pill and treatment burdens that older adults often experience. The American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) offers clinical practice resources to support clinicians as well as “Lifestyle Medicine and Food as Medicine Essentials,” a 5.5-hour complimentary CE/CME course on food and lifestyle medicine that introduces clinicians to the therapeutic use of lifestyle medicine. ACLM also offers members interest groups focused on geriatrics, fitness, and mental health, which may be beneficial to clinicians treating older adults.

By engaging with older patients on their lifestyle behaviors, we can ensure that we are doing all we can to help them live longer — and live better.

Dr. Collings is director of lifestyle medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and past president, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study conducted in the United States showed that many individuals undergo lung cancer screening despite having a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit. Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?

Reasons in Favor

The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.

Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
 

Potential Harms 

The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.

Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.

The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
 

Screening in Italy

Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.

Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.

Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study conducted in the United States showed that many individuals undergo lung cancer screening despite having a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit. Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?

Reasons in Favor

The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.

Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
 

Potential Harms 

The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.

Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.

The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
 

Screening in Italy

Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.

Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.

Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study conducted in the United States showed that many individuals undergo lung cancer screening despite having a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit. Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?

Reasons in Favor

The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.

Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
 

Potential Harms 

The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.

Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.

The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
 

Screening in Italy

Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.

Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.

Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.